Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

New Aircraft Types

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the last three types of aircraft accepted by his Department, what time has elapsed between the issue of first staff requirements and the equipping of the first Fleet Air Arm squadron.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): Three and a half, two and three years approximately. These aircraft were adaptations or developments of aircraft already in existence and the times given are below the average for new types.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information I was seeking was of completely new types? The delay between the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply is resulting in aircraft in almost every case being obsolescent before they are in the air, and if the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it will he recall such aircraft as the Skua, the Roc, the Fulmar, the Albacore and the Barracuda?

Mr. Callaghan: I must answer the Question that is put on the Order Paper. The Question asked for
the last three types of aircraft accepted by his Department.
That is the Question I answered.

Cruisers

Mr. Donner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many cruisers are now in commission.

Mr. Callaghan: I would refer the hon. Member to my noble Friend's Statement

Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1951–52.

Mr. Donner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every time this Question is asked we have fewer cruisers in commission than before, and that with 30 cruisers sold or scrapped, this constitutes re-armament in reverse?

Mr. Callaghan: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that enemy fleets of cruisers have disappeared off the seas. The Navy staff requirements are fully met.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that commerce raiders have not disappeared off the seas? Is it not a fact that we now have less than half the number of cruisers we had in 1939 and less than a quarter we had in 1914? Will the hon. Gentleman see that the cruisers which are half finished are completed quickly?

Mr. Callaghan: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that both the German and Japanese fleets have disappeared.

Merchant Ships (Defence)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are being taken to accumulate stocks of weapons and materials for the defensive armament of merchant ships in case of need.

Mr. Callaghan: Dual purpose weapons for defensively arming the Merchant Fleet in an emergency have been accumulated and suitably distributed throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that we have adequate stocks to meet an emergency?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am satisfied about that; and as we get more guns of better quality for the Fleet it will be possible to improve the standard of defensive equipment for merchant ships.

Store Department (Removal)

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated saving in labour and cost resulting from the removal of the Naval Store Department from Sheerness to His Majesty's Dockyard, Chatham.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The net saving in labour to date is 21 non-industrials and 50 industrials, with a total annual pay bill of about £21,000. There has also been saving by the release of storehouses and stocks of stores at Sheerness. which cannot be easily estimated.

Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend prepared to state that there has been no loss of efficiency in consequence of this change?

Mr. Edwards: It is not a question of loss of efficiency. The change is not yet complete, but we hope that there will be more efficiency when the removal to Chatham is completed.

Retained Men

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the hardship and disappointment caused to men now due for release after long service in the Royal Navy by the notification that they have to serve another 18 months, and that this delay will diminish the prospect of suitable civilian employment for many of these men, now 30 years of age; how many men in all are affected; and if he will reexamine the possibility of lessening this delay by a more economical use of existing manpower or by recalling a larger number of Royal Fleet reservists.

Mr. Callaghan: I regret the disappointment caused to men due for release by the decision to retain them for a further period. So far 5,250 men are affected, and I am glad to say that the decision has been generally understood and accepted. In an attempt to get the best use of existing manpower, training schedules will be overhauled with a view to speeding them up. As far as it is within the power of His Majesty's Government, posts will be kept open for detained men until they are released. It would not make the general position better to alter the balance between recalled reservists and retained men.

Mr. Driberg: When my hon. Friend says that so far as possible posts will be kept open for these men, does he mean that they may be covered by the new legislation dealing with reinstatement in civil employment?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I was not thinking of that. Many of the men who are retained have no jobs to go back to. These are new posts, and I am thinking of vacancies, for example, in the Fire Service, the Civil Service, the Police Force and local government where we can bring some influence to bear to ensure that posts are kept open.

Commander Noble: While I have the deepest sympathy with these men who are retained, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a complete indictment of his Government's policy over the last few years in failing to take steps to prevent experienced men from leaving the Service, in spite of many warnings from this side of the House?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that an inquest will do hon. Members opposite much good. I should have thought that part of the reason for this delay was the suspension of regular recruitment during the war years. It is a consequence of that that there are now experienced men with 10 years' service who are wanted for these jobs.

Commander Maitland: In his original answer the Parliamentary Secretary said that he proposed to speed up training courses. Will he assure the House that there will be no sacrifice of quality to obtain numbers, as this would be a most serious price to pay?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, we must try to speed up training by breaking down courses into sub-specialisation and by trying to ensure that those who use equipment also maintain it.

Captain Ryder: Will the hon. Gentleman examine far more closely all the people who have been called up? The people who are hit by far the hardest are those who, after completing a long term of service, are now being called up for a long time and not for 15 days?

Commander Galbraith: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that large numbers of men have failed to re-engage? Is that not due to the policy adopted by the Government?

Mr. Callaghan: There have been substantial inducements to men to re-engage and come back into the Service, and that is having its effect. As for the other suggestion, it is not the case that large


numbers of men have gone out of the Navy. Most of the petty officers we now have are reaching the end of their term of service this year or next year.

Mr. Driberg: When I mentioned the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill I was, of course, meaning those probably very few cases where the men have jobs waiting for them. Could my hon. Friend look into that?

Mr. Callaghan: Certainly.

Naval Aviation

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what date was the name of the Fleet Air Arm last changed; and by what official designation is it now known.

Mr. Callaghan: Use of the term "Fleet Air Arm" was discontinued over four years ago, as flying is an integral part of the activities of the Royal Navy. From time to time, when it is convenient to employ a generic noun, the term "Naval Aviation" is used.

Mr. Langford-Holt: If the use of the term "Fleet Air Arm" was discontinued four years ago, why is it that the First Lord of the Admiralty used it in another place a few weeks ago? Secondly, what was the reason for changing from "Fleet Air Arm" to "Air Branch of the Royal Navy," from "Air Branch of the Royal Navy" to "Naval Air Arm," and from ''Naval Air Arm" to "Naval Aviation"? Would the hon. Gentleman not bring some sense into this and call it by the name by which everyone knows it?

Mr. Callaghan: "Fleet Air Arm," during years between the wars, meant the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force. Now there has been an attempt to introduce a term which will not confuse people and which, at the same time, will not seem to show that aviation is something separate from the activities of the Navy as a whole.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: If "Naval Aviation" is a valid term, is it not automatically correct that the alternative type of service in the Navy could be equally and as efficiently known as "Naval Seafaring"?

Hospitals (Civilian Assistants)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress has now been made towards an increase in salary and improved conditions for pensioner civilian operating room assistants employed in the Royal naval hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. Edwards: The review of the pay and conditions of this small group of staff has received much attention, but progress has, unfortunately, been slow because of the difficulty of establishing standards of comparison in other fields. We are making every endeavour to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that only 11 men are concerned, that they are all very highly qualified men with the State registration—or if they have not got it they are asking for it at present—and that negotiations have been going on for four years?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think negotiations have been going on for four years. I agree that the number is small, but that is all the more essential that greater consideration should be given to each application.

Reserve Officers (Bounty)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what bounty will be paid to officers of the Emergency List, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer (Supplementary) Reserve, who are now being called up for 18 months' service.

Mr. Callaghan: This matter is under consideration.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say when a decision will be reached?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the numbers required are not very large, is it not desirable that the Royal Naval Volunteers should, in fact, be volunteers in this matter? Would it not be better if an inducement were given to that end so that the hon. Gentleman would get the numbers he requires without the necessity of an actual call-up?

Mr. Callaghan: The principle is still to be determined, and the other Services, particularly the R.A.F., are concerned in this matter.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister give an assurance that if, in fact, a bounty is granted, those who volunteer before its announcement will get it?

Mr. Callaghan: I have not said anything which would lead the hon. and gallant Gentleman to believe that a bounty will be granted.

GR17/44 Aircraft (Changes)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many major changes have been made to the specification for the GR17/44 aircraft since the first staff requirement was issued; and on what date this requirement was issued.

Mr. Callaghan: Two, Sir. The requirement was issued in December, 1945.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the hon. Member assure me that there has been, and there is now, no intention of altering the seating capacity of this aircraft from two to three, which will radically alter it?

Mr. Callaghan: That is one of the two major alterations that has been effected. The number of seats has already been altered from two to three.

Explosives Factory, Holton Heath

Viscount Cranborne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what the minimum rate of pay is at the Royal Naval explosives factory at Holton Heath.

Mr. W. Edwards: The minimum rate of pay for an adult workman at Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, is 103s. a week.

Viscount Cranborne: Is the Minister aware that the information I have is that the minimum wage is 90s.?

Mr. Edwards: No. Probably the hon. Member was told before the recent increases were granted.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are not these rates very low for this valuable and

dangerous work? Are they not supplemented by benefits in kind or allowances?

Mr. Edwards: The rates are negotiated in the same way as all other rates for Admiralty employees, and compare favourably with outside interests.

Viscount Cranborne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what members of the staff of the Royal Naval explosives factory at Holton Heath are in receipt of danger money.

Mr. W. Edwards: No member of the staff of the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, is in receipt of danger money.

Viscount Cranborne: Then why is it necessary to surround many of the buildings with large mounds of earth?

Mr. Edwards: It is necessary to surround them to save them from damage in the event of an explosion taking place.

Viscount Cranborne: If there is danger of an explosion should not the men working in the mound be in receipt of danger money?

Mr. Edwards: In any cordite or ammunition factory there is a risk of danger. On the question of pay, the best way of dealing with these applications for better wages and conditions is through the men's trade unions.

Sir Herbert Williams: If danger money were offered would it not be much more difficult to get people to work in these places? Is it not also the case that these places are not nearly as dangerous as walking on a London street?

Reserve Fleet

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what ships of the Reserve Fleet will be brought forward to active service during 1951.

Mr. Callaghan: It is planned to bring forward 60 ships from reserve for service with the active Fleet in 1951: two destroyers: two frigates; three submarines; eight ocean and 22 other minesweepers; two fast minelayers and 21 smaller craft. In addition, one light fleet carrier, one destroyer, one landing ship (headquarters) and three A/S frigates will be brought forward for trials and training.

Sir R. Ross: Would it not be better to complete some of the new ships which have been uncompleted for so long rather than bring old ships back?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Cable and Wireless, Ltd., Ex-employees (Pay)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General how many ex-employees of Cable and Wireless, Limited, are now receiving in his service lower total remuneration than that received when the service was under private enterprise.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): Up to 1947, members of Cable and Wireless, Limited, received a variable bonus, related to the company's profits, which was not reckoned for pension or for overtime rates. This bonus was consolidated with pay from 1st January, 1947, under an agreement negotiated between the company and the staff associations concerned. None of the company's staff transferred to the Post Office on 1st April, 1950, receives less than his normal pay at the time of transfer. Extra earnings for Sunday duty and overtime are, of course, largely dependent on day-to-day conditions.

Mr. Shepherd: Is that answer designed to conceal the fact that the employees do not now receive as much remuneration under State ownership as they did when they were employed by Cable and Wireless?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, the answer is designed to give the facts and the consequences of an agreement which was freely negotiated between both sides.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that taking into account the bonus, which is an essential part of their earnings, the men are receiving today from his Department what they previously received from Cable and Wireless?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, what I am saying is that some may receive more and some may receive less, but we are paying what is provided for under a freely negotiated agreement.

Mr. Marlowe: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question, contrasting wages under private enterprise and in a nationalised industry, does he agree that Cable and Wireless is now a nationalised industry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is an entirely different matter. Cable and Wireless was divided into several parts and an independent company has been formed with a limited charter. It cannot be described as a nationalised undertaking.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Was not an undertaking given at the time of the takeover that none of the employees would be worse off under the new scheme? Does not the Postmaster-General's answer imply that that undertaking has not been carried out?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If that undertaking has not been carried out, we should have heard from the trade union associations before now. So far, we have had no representations.

Airmail Carriers (Rates)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster- General in how many instances the rates paid by his Department to State and charter air lines are up to the agreed inter national standard; and in how many he is paying below the agreed international standard.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no agreed international standard governing the rates to be paid by postal administrations to their national air operators. The rates paid to British air carriers for the conveyance of mails are negotiated on a commercial basis.

Mr. Shepherd: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman regards as inaccurate and unreasonable the statement made in the report of B.O.A.C. on this matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have given the facts.

Crossed Cheques

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Post master-General whether he will amend Post Office regulations to permit the enclosure of crossed cheques with in voices or statements sent as printed papers.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 14th February, 1951.

Mr. Redmayne: That was a considerable time ago. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this would be of considerable assistance in keeping down the overheads of industries and would be of help in controlling the cost of living?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that it would be quite unthinkable to do this. It would only increase temptation over a very wide field, and I do not think that it would be in the interests of industry to introduce this sort of innovation.

Savings Certificates (Children)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster- General why his Savings Department re quires the parents of a child under seven years of age to prove that repayment of the child's certificates is necessary for the child's urgent need but repays, without question, on the child's signature, certificates held by a child of seven years of age, although that signature may be directed by the parents.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir G. Harvie-Watt) on 6th March.

Mr. Keeling: As a child of seven is bound to sign any document which his father or mother puts before him, what is the point of this rule, which causes a great deal of unnecessary work?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a hundred years' old law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday gave an undertaking to review this whole question and to see what could be done to put it right. I agree that it is very anomalous.

Football Pool Tickets (Sale)

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that football permutation tickets are being sold on behalf of a political party by postmen in uniform; whether this is being done by his authority; and if he will put a stop to this practice immediately.

Mr. Ness Edwards: One postman is known to have been selling such tickets. The practice is contrary to Post Office rules and was stopped as soon as it came to light.

Mr. Hudson: Is the Minister aware that when the firm to which the staff is attached moved its address some miles away, the matter was taken up, and the supply of tickets was taken over by the new postman concerned? Is not that an abuse of His Majesty's postal service?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order. May we ask the Minister to give an answer?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson), gave a lot of information but he did not ask a question. He informed the Postmaster-General of what had happened.

Telecommunications Board (Chairmanship)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Postmaster-General when the vacancy of chairman on the Imperial Telecommunications Board will be filled.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Under the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement, the chairman of the Board is to be appointed jointly by the partner Governments, who have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this vacancy has existed now for four months? In view of the very serious problems confronting the Board, will he treat the matter as one of urgency?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is a matter of urgency. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his time factor. We have not been idle for four months, and we are pressing the Commonwealth Governments to come to a decision on this matter.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairmanship was vacated on the 27th November, and I make that four months ago?

Civil Service Unions (Consultation)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General if, before announcing the terms of reference for the Trade


Union Recognition Policy Committee, he consulted the representatives of the Civil Service unions; and with what result.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir; a satisfactory understanding was reached.

Mr. Johnson: May I now take it that there is no substance in the allegations that these unions were not consulted?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Civil Service unions who were concerned in this were consulted.

Mails (s.s. "Batory")

Sir David Robertson: asked the Postmaster-General why his Department is using the Polish vessel s.s. "Batory" for the conveyance of export parcels to North America, in view of the delays which occur in New York while the vessel's cargo is being examined.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand from the U.S. Post Office that mails sent from this country to the United States by the motor vessel "Batory" are subject to delay of not more than four hours on average. I am. however, looking into the specific case about which the hon. Member has written to me, and I will write to him as soon as possible.

Sir D. Robertson: Is that not somewhat astonishing in view of the notorious publicity which this vessel has received and the well-known fact that her cargo is suspect and is gone through with a fine tooth-comb every time the ship goes into New York; and does not the Minister acknowledge that I have given him evidence in writing on this subject?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to examine the evidence first, and have the observations of the United States Post Office on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

Reception, South-West Area

Mr. Lambert: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has taken any further action to improve broadcast reception in north Devonshire.

Sir Harold Roper: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any statement to make about the prospect of improved reception of British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes in north Devonshire and Cornwall.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. is examining proposals for improving reception in this and other areas, and I am awaiting their conclusions.

Mr. Lambert: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he instructed the B.B.C. to sacrifice the quality of sound reception generally to provide television in the north of England, will he either improve the quality of sound reception or reduce the cost of wireless licences?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is not a matter under my control. The B.B.C. are proceeding under their Charter to do with their capital as they are entitled to do. They inform me that they are seeking to improve the service in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, and I am giving that information to the House.

Sir H. Roper: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine who recently moved into Cornwall from Devon described the reception of wireless in Cornwall as "positively shocking." As we all have to pay full licence fees, does he not agree that the improvement in the efficiency of reception should have first priority in the allocation of capital expenditure?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. is the authority in this matter. I have made representations to the B.B.C. and have therefore, discharged my duty to the House.

Mr. Hay man: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that reception throughout Cornwall is not altogether "perfectly shocking," although it is capable of improvement, and will he do what he can in this matter?

Sir R. Ross: Are the B.B.C. trying to improve reception in Northern Ireland, and if not, why not?

Mr. Speaker: I have yet to learn that Northern Ireland is part of Devonshire.

Sir. R. Ross: I was putting a supplementary question in relation to the answer which the Postmaster-General gave, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: These Questions refer only to Devonshire and Cornwall and not to Northern Ireland.

Brigadier Peto: On a point of order. I wish to correct the statement made by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have every Devonshire Member speaking on Devonshire Questions; although sometimes we have every Scotsman upon Scottish Questions. I have to draw the line somewhere. We will go on to the next Question.

Brigadier Peto: Further to that point of order. I wish to say, Sir, that the Postmaster-General referred to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torrington (Mr. Lambert) as the hon. Member for North Devon, which he is not.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me to deal with.

Brigadier Rayner: On a point of order. May I say that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: That does not matter to me in the least.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the poor reception of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes, particularly the West Regional Service, in the South-Western counties; and whether he will take steps to have the transmission in this area improved.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. are examining proposals for improving reception in certain parts of the South-Western counties, and I am awaiting their conclusions.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a lot of dissatisfaction about this, and that the transmission that comes through best is, unfortunately, in a language which, whatever its great merits, is completely unintelligible to me and to my constituents, and is, therefore, of only limited interest?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not attempting to force a knowledge of Welsh on to the Western counties. I admit that reception is not what it ought to be, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen, in the Beveridge Report, several proposals for improving the position. The B.B.C. are actively considering what they can do to improve things in the West Country.

Mr. Studholme: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the B.B.C, and bear in mind that if it is a question of choosing between improved radio reception and television the majority of people would prefer improved radio reception?

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: Will the Postmaster-General give us an assurance that his inquiries will also cover West Somerset, which is equally affected; and. owing to the fact that many of our constituents do not speak Welsh, will he consider the possibility of reducing the cost of the licence of those of us who sometimes get no programme at all?

Mr. Ness Edwards: These are not my inquiries. Reception is the responsibility of the B.B.C.

Sir H. Williams: Then why is the right hon. Gentleman answering?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am answering because it is laid down in the Charter that I shall answer for the B.B.C, and I am conveying to the House what they are doing.

Brigadier Peto: Is it not a fact that the Postmaster-General himself, together with other technicians, visited North Devon last summer to find out what was wrong with broadcasting; and can he tell the House how much that cost and whether there has been any result?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the first part of the supplementary question is wrong the rest obviously does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Operator, Earlswood

Mr. Profumo: asked the Postmaster-General what were the circumstances which led to the termination of employment and of the occupation of his present dwelling-place, with one month's notice, of Mr. C. B. Payne, caretaker operator of the telephone exchange at Earlswood, Warwickshire, after 24 years' service for his Department, culminating in a recent period of illness, and when there is no alternative accommodation and no pension forthcoming.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office is under legal obligation to give vacant possession on 25th March. 1951. An


automatic exchange is being provided at Earlswood. Mr. Payne has been considered for another caretaker operator post but, unfortunately, he is unable to take on such work. I very much regret that circumstances beyond my control prevent me from allowing Mr. Payne to continue his occupation of the premises. He has given 24 years' service as caretaker operator and is eligible for a gratuity on retirement.

Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister not aware that all these things were known a long time ago, and does he think that this sort of treatment is conducive to getting new recruits into his Department? In view of the disreputable way in which Mr. Payne has been treated, will the Minister personally try to find him alternative accommodation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If hon. Gentlemen opposite would induce the owner of this propety to relieve us of our legal obligation to get out, we would see what we could do.

Mr. Profumo: It has nothing to do with legal obligation; it is the obligation of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the local authorities where such people live to have their names placed on the housing lists, so that they may have some protection when they are called upon to leave these tied cottages?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This employee has had very long notice. He knew that he had to clear out. He knew that his occupation of the premises was tied up with the lease, and that as the lease was coming to an end he had to get out.

Kiosks (Rural Areas)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Postmaster-General how many public telephone kiosks have been provided for and will be erected in the current financial year, and of that number how many are in rural areas; and if he will give the number to be provided in the next financial year.

Mr. Ness Edwards: About 3,000 were provided, of which 1,000 were in rural areas. The programme for the next financial year is not settled, but it is hoped to provide not less than in the present year.

Sir D. Robertson: Does that answer not prove that the policy the Postmaster-General announced last year is not being carried out in the rural areas? The towns are being favoured because they are easier to deal with than the country districts, which are being neglected.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. I announced the policy of extending the rural telephone kiosk programme; we have extended it and are maintaining that extension. Compared with pre-war the position is now much better.

Rentals

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the large profit made by the Post Office, he will abolish the 15 per cent. surcharge on quarterly rental fees for telephones.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Greatly increasing costs rule out any possibility of reducing telephone rentals.

Mr. Fisher: As the Post Office profits on this none too satisfactory monopoly system for last year amounted to some £9 million, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that at least a part of this might be devoted to the benefit of the subscribers, and that he would be fully justified in reducing his surcharge?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Things have changed very substantially from what they were last year.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported to us in his Financial Statement that there was a cash loss on the Post Office of nearly £10 million?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I believe there was a cash deficit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Volunteer Reserve (Rank)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Air if air-crew who voluntarily join the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve may retain their rank, as is the case when air-crew reserves are called up.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): Men with former R.A.F. service who join the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve are given substantive


rank equivalent to the rank held at the time of release. In some cases, however, officers are given lower substantive rank in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve than the temporary or war substantive ranks they held under exceptional war-time promotion rules.

Sir I. Fraser: Does this mean that the men who are being called up from the G Reserve are being treated better by getting the highest rank they had?

Mr. Crawley: No, Sir. In most cases the people in the Volunteer Reserve have the same rank as they had when they left the Forces. In some cases, where they were given exceptional promotion for exceptional war-time reasons, they get a lower rank when called up.

Sir I. Fraser: The Under-Secretary has merely repeated his original answer and not answered my supplementary question. I asked him whether he will assimilate the conditions for volunteers to those which apply to the G reservists?

Mr. Crawley: No, Sir. G reservists are specially selected men who are called up to fill special posts for only 15 days. They will hold the rank those posts carry for 15 days, but that has no relation whatever to the rank they would hold if they were called up on full mobilisation. The cases are quite different.

Auxiliary Squadrons

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are still on a one flight basis.

Mr. Crawley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Donner: In that case, how does the Under-Secretary justify the assertion of his right hon. and learned Friend on 7th February, when he said:
It is not the case that the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons are at half strength."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1715.]

Mr. Crawley: The Royal Auxiliary squadrons, in pre-war days, had one training flight and one operational flight, and that is what they have now. This question was fully discussed in debate yesterday.

Surgeon Lieut. Commander Bennett: Might it not be more straightforward if these units were now renamed "flights" instead of "squadrons"?

Bombing, Heligoland

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air what considerations have led him to abandon the bombing of Heligoland for target practice.

Mr. Crawley: Heligoland, which had been made uninhabitable by war-time bombing and subsequent demolitions, was first used for bombing practice in 1946. It was the most convenient range available for full-scale practice by Bomber Command, and it was decided, because reconstruction could not in any case be started for some time, that the return of the Heligolanders to the island must be deferred.
It was realised, however, that such a situation could not continue indefinitely, and it has now been decided to accede to a request of the German Federal Government made on 12th January this year that the previous residents be allowed to return as soon as possible. Accordingly, the use of the island for bombing will be given up when alternative facilities have been secured, and in any case not later than March, 1952.

Mr. Gammans: Would it not have been better if the decision to abandon Heligoland as a bombing range had been made some time ago, and the Government had not waited until it appeared that they abandoned it only under pressure of German public opinion?

Mr. Crawley: I do not agree at all. The fact is that the German Federal Government are now co-operating in helping to find us alternative sites.

Mr. John Hynd: Is it not the case that the German Federal Government have already made proposals for alternative sites, and that this abandonment of Heligoland as a target will take place very much before 1952?

Professor Savory: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary has been moved by the petition of the 2,000 Heligolanders which I forwarded to him with a view to letting them get back to their native island as soon as possible?

Mr. Crawley: I am sure that we are all always moved by representations made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Amory: Can the hon. Gentleman say to which people he refers as "the previous residents"? Are they the prewar 1939 residents or the squatters?

Professor Savory: The squatters are not Heligolanders.

American Aircraft (Cost)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air what will be the cost in dollars of replacing with American air craft those manufactured in Britain and sold to foreign countries during the last four years.

Mr. Crawley: None of the aircraft which we have asked the United States to supply for the R.A.F. under the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme is required to replace British types of aircraft which have been exported to foreign countries. The question of cost does not therefore arise.

Mr. Profumo: Is it not a fact that, whatever the Under-Secretary may now say, we shall have to be given, lent or sold American fighter aircraft equivalent to the number the Government sold to foreign countries before we can really be considered to be increasing our Air Force, which will involve either America or ourselves in a totally unwarranted cost?

Mr. Crawley: There is no relation whatever between the number of aircraft we hope to get from the United States and any number which have been sold to foreign countries. Nor, even if we did replace with later types some of the aircraft already in service, is there any connection between the fighter aircraft we may get from the United States and those we sold two or three years ago.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that if those aircraft had remained in this country his Department would have had no use for them at all?

Auxiliaries (Training)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for Air if those men and women who have joined the Royal Auxiliary Air Force since the war and in so doing have accepted lower rank, will be

called-up in any G, or other class service, in the rank held during their former Royal Air Force service.

Mr. Crawley: Man and women who are members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will not be called up for Class G. They will carry out training in their Royal Auxiliary Air Force units in the ranks they hold in those units.

Mr. Cooper: Since many auxiliaries will be losing financially during their three months' service, compared with what they receive in their civil employment, can the Minister see any way of removing the apparent unfairness mentioned in the Question? Is it not a fact that those who have volunteered since the war to serve in the Auxiliary Air Force will be losing compared with those who have been conscripted for service under the new arrangements?

Mr. Crawley: We hope to help them by a bounty.

Craftsmen, Little Rissington

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many civilian hourly rated mechanics are employed at No. 8 Maintenance Unit, Royal Air Force, Little Rissington, Gloucester; how many of these are registered dilutees; and how many were formerly so registered who are now qualified as crafts men.

Mr. Crawley: The number of metal working craftsmen employed on the repair and modification of aircraft at No. 8 Maintenance Unit, Little Rissington, is 140, of whom 50 are registered dilutees. The number of craftsmen recognised as fully skilled who were formerly registered as dilutees is four.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Airfield Site, Boldon

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement with regard to the proposal that a site at Boldon, County Durham, should be earmarked for a civil airfield.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): My noble Friend is now satisfied that, with the development of civil aviation,


there may well be a need in the future for an international airport to serve the north-east area and that Boldon is the best site for that purpose. Although, for economic reasons, there is no prospect of building this airport in the near future, the site will be safeguarded against any surface development which might prejudice its eventual use as an international airport.

Miss Ward: While expressing pleasure at the satisfactory outcome of the representations made to the Minister from both sides of the House in this connection, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that to maintain employment on the north-east coast it is of urgent importance that we should be associated with every modern development? Will he take steps towards that end, so that in future we shall not be put into the position of having applied rather than negotiated?

Mr. Beswick: We will bear that point in mind.

Passenger Seating

Mr. Profumo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the accumulating evidence that seats facing the tail or an aeroplane afford a greater degree of safety to passengers, it is proposed to take any action, other than international recommendations, to introduce this safeguard for the benefit of those flying by British services.

Mr. Beswick: British civil airworthiness requirements, just issued, include a recommendation that, where practicable, passenger seats should face aft. My noble Friend is considering, in the light of recent experience and in consultation with the airline corporations, the need for further action.

Prestwick Airport (Dumping)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will take steps to prevent the dumping of pit refuse on the land to be used for future extention of the runways at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Beswick: Yes, Sir, as soon as an alternative site can be found. Meanwhile, the mining of the coal must continue.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that he has no power to stop the dumping of refuse on runways at an airport for which his Ministry is responsible? It will only cost the country further money to remove it later.

Mr. Beswick: I have no information that this refuse is being dumped on runways that we are using. I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have no power to prevent dumping on the site which is being used at present for that purpose.

Aircraft Approach System, Bovingdon

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for how long he proposes to continue to operate the existing Standard Beam Approach installation at Bovingdon; what is the estimated cost of removing it; and what would be the additional annual maintenance charge for keeping it in service.

Mr. Beswick: No date has yet been determined for the withdrawal of Standard Beam Approach from Bovingdon. It will be available there for a period sufficient to enable operators to equip their aircraft with instrument landing system airborne receivers. Its removal would cost less than £20; the estimated annual cost of its maintenance is £800.

Mr. Grimston: In view of the very high cost of installing the alternative system, will he consider trying to keep this old service, which is perfectly useful?

Mr. Beswick: Certainly not. We have been pressed from all sides of the House, and it is an international requirement that this new system should be installed.

Princess Flying Boat

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the decision not to proceed with the Princess Flying Boat for commercial operation.

Mr. Beswick: Owing to the rapid progress which has been made in the development of the Comet it is now thought likely that the Comet will be better adapted for the needs of civil aviation


than the larger flying boats, and accordingly it has been decided that British Overseas Airways Corporation shall not introduce these boats into service However, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air said yesterday, the use of the Princess flying boats as military transports is being favourably considered. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply needs the boats for development and experimental purposes, and many lessons of great value to aeronautical science will be learnt from them.

Mr. Grimston: Are not these three aircraft the latest addition to what is regarded as an impressive collection of white elephants?

Mr. Beswick: These three aircraft will perform very useful service in the interests of the nation.

Mr. G. Cooper: Is it not a fact that the operation of the flying boats on the African route during the last period of operation by the B.O.A.C. was. in fact, profitable?

Mr. Beswick: That is not quite accurate, and in any case it has nothing to do with the statement mentioned in the Question which we are now considering.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Which Departmental Vote will bear the cost of developing these flying boats?

Mr. Beswick: It depends upon the eventual user.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Does my hon. Friend recall that he has several times indicated that when these boats come into commission they will be based on Southampton? Can he give a further assurance in that respect?

Mr. Beswick: If my hon. Friend is referring to the possible use by the Royal Air Force he should put his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not the statement show that high executives of the B.O.A.C. have very little knowledge of business, since they ought to have made up their minds on this matter two years ago? Will the hon. Gentleman try to instil some knowledge of business methods into them?

Mr. Beswick: There are considerations which apply now which did not apply two years ago.

Mr. Nicholson: How is the cost being met up to date?

Mr. Beswick: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be tragic to lose the "know-how" of making these big flying boats? Unless the Government give proper encouragement is there not a danger of losing this "know-how"?

Mr. Beswick: We have given very considerable encouragement, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are already talking about the financial cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Colonial Manpower

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for the further use of Colonial manpower.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): Considerable developments in Colonial Forces have taken place in the last decade. Nevertheless, the Government have by no means closed their minds to the possibility of further developments in this direction, despite the practical difficulties referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in the defence debate on 14th February.

Commander Noble: While the Minister is looking at this problem will he bear in mind the manpower position in Malta, and consider whether it would not be possible for recruiting for all three Services to take place actually on the spot in Malta?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly, that point will be considered.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House that in this case there will be no question of conscription and that any Forces will be completely volunteer Forces?

Mr. Shinwell: I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has any decision been come to about the raising of more colonial troops in East Africa?

Mr. Shinwell: That is part of the consideration.

Retained Men

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Defence whether members of His Majesty's Forces who are retained beyond the period of their enlistment and who qualify for a bounty at the end of that period, will receive a proportionate in crease in their bounty.

Mr. Shinwell: I assume that the Question relates to officers and men of the Forces who have completed short-term engagements; the answer is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision is equivalent to a reduction of pay of about 10s. per week for other ranks, and does he not feel that that will affect readiness to enlist and the spirit in which men serve after enlistment?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot see that there has been any reduction in pay.

Brigadier Clarke: May we have an assurance that all those men who are due for a bounty in the three Services, and who have been retained beyond their time, will now receive it?

Mr. Shinwell: Those who are entitled to bounty will, of course, receive it.

North Atlantic Command

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will represent to the next meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Council the desirability of distributing the offices of Supreme Commander of the three Services in such a way as to reflect the contribution of the Allied effort on both sides of the Atlantic; and, in view of the appointments already announced, whether he will advance the claims of a high-ranking officer in the Royal Air Force to the office of Supreme Commander of the Air Forces of the Atlantic Pact countries in Europe in the event of war.

Mr. Shinwell: We shall, of course, bear in mind the points to which the hon. Member refers. He will, however, realise

that the governing consideration in all these appointments, including Air Force appointments, must continue to be the determination of all concerned to pick the men whose appointments can best serve the interests of the North Atlantic Powers as a whole.

Mr. de Chair: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Prime Minister stated that an American admiral had been agreed in principle, and that it was, therefore, not a question of individual calibre? Will he impress on his American colleague on the Council that the United States really cannot expect to have it three ways? Will he bear in mind that, if the Royal Air Force had been under the control of a non-British supreme commander in 1940, it is very likely that our Metropolitan squadrons would have been drawn into the Battle of France and would not have been available for the subsequent Battle of Britain?

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that those observations could better be dealt with in the course of debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what discussions have taken place about the salary of the Supreme Naval Commander: and if he will make an announcement.

Mr. Shinwell: The present practice is for any officer holding an appointment under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to be paid by his own Government.

Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say what notice is required to terminate the appointment?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not see anything in the Question about that.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not the case that when Marshal Foch was appointed to the supreme command in the First World War the British Government insisted on paying a share of his salary?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's historical facts, but the position at present is that the salary is paid by the Government of whichever person is appointed. There may, of course, be some change in this arrangement, but at present there is no intention of making a change.

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Defence what naval representation this country has on the Standing Group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: As the United Kingdom member of the Standing Group and as Chairman of the British Joint Services Mission in Washington, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder represents all three British Chiefs of Staff.

Captain Ryder: Does not this mean that the Royal Navy is represented only in a subordinate capacity? Is it not a fact that the Standing Group is composed of one soldier and two airmen, and is not this the Group which will have the strategical control of the naval Forces in the Atlantic? Is not that an odd arrangement?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has it all wrong. Lord Tedder is our representative on the Standing Group as the head of the British Joint Services Mission in Washington—

Mr. Churchill: He is an airman.

Mr. Shinwell: Of course he is an airman. I thought it was well known that Lord Tedder was an airman. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution is superfluous. Lord Tedder represents the three Services. There can be no question of the naval contribution being subordinate. As representing the three Services, Lord Tedder has to concern himself with the interests of the Admiralty as he does with the interests of the Air Ministry and the War Office.

Captain Ryder: Will this appointment always go to an airman, or will the holder sometimes be an admiral.

Mr. Shinwell: It is true that it is proposed to replace Lord Tedder, who is an airman, with another airman, but it does not follow that we shall always appoint an airman.

Mr. Snow: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that the First Sea Lord is satisfied with the naval representation here, as in other places?

Mr. Shinwell: I have seen some observation to that effect, but it has nothing to do with the Question.

Air Commodore Harvey: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say the other day

that the Royal Air Force was now the primary military Force?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. I should have thought that if anybody would be satisfied with what I said it would be the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey).

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Oilseeds (Processing Costs)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food what is the difference per ton between the highest and lowest prices charged by individual firms for the processing of oilseeds; and on what basis he decides which firms to employ.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): There is no difference in the rates paid by the Ministry to firms doing the same work, since a standard rate of payment for each process carried out on each variety of oilseed is fixed every six months. We arrange our processing programme so as to keep down transport and distribution costs both for oilseeds and oils and for the finished products.

Mr. Osborne: How can the Minister say that there is no difference in the prices paid to different firms when the Comptroller and Auditor General remarked on this in his Report and said how unsatisfactory it was? Will he please look again at the Report and give the House a better answer?

Mr. Willey: I have seen the Report, and it would repay the hon. Gentleman to look at it again, because he might then not be so confused.

Mr. Osborne: The same to the hon. Gentleman, if I may be allowed to say so.

Margarine Production

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement with regard to the discussions with the accountants from the margarine industry on the subject of increasing the incentive to economical production and the weeding out of the least efficient units.

Mr. F. Willey: These discussions are still going on, but I understand that the industry's accountants now consider that,


under present conditions, there would be great practical difficulties in operating an incentive scheme on the lines originally proposed.

Mr. Osborne: The Minister says that the position is now more satisfactory. What is the length of time between his "now" and the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who was not satisfied when he made it?

Mr. Willey: I did not say that anything was more satisfactory. I said that discussions were still proceeding.

Prisoners (Meat Ration)

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Food the retail value of the weekly meat ration supplied to prisoners in His Majesty's gaols.

Mr. F. Willey: Supplies to prisons are at the same rate per head as the ordinary ration.

Mr. Hudson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the ration authorised today compares with the quantities supplied in 1939? Would he agree that in those days more meat was available to prisoners in His Majesty's gaols than to the general public today?

Festival of Britain (Supplies)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food to what extent the present shortage of food is due to stockpiling for the Festival of Britain.

Mr. F. Willey: No food is being stockpiled for the Festival of Britain; and it is misleading to talk about a general shortage of food in this country.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Sir J. Mellor: If a large number of visitors come from overseas to the Festival of Britain, will not everybody in this country go very hungry?

Mr. Willey: I think we should be careful about this matter. We are welcoming these visitors and the House should know—it has previously been pointed out—that less than one-tenth per cent. of the ration requirements of the United Kingdom for the Festival period will be required for every million visitors for every week they stay.

Mr. Eden: That may be true, but is it really desirable to advertise in American newspapers that food here is plentiful when everybody knows that that is not true?

Mr. Harrison: Will my hon. Friend arrange to have published in the American newspapers copies of some of the London hotel menus—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The dinners and the wines.

Mr. Harrison: —so that the American people can see that there is plenty of food in this country for visitors?

Mr. Eden: Is not that a reflection on the Government?

Mr. Nicholson: If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is no shortage of food in this country, will he be kind enough to divulge the whereabouts of the meat?

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Was not the Parliamentary Secretary's statement the biggest howler made in this Parliament?

Russian Tinned Goods

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what tinned foodstuffs, and in what quantities, are expected from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a result of the decision to export tin-plate to that country in the first quarter of 1951.

Mr. Willey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), on Monday, 5th March, 1951.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: But as the 1,800 tons of tinplate which we exported to Russia was sufficient to can about twice the amount of food that Russia is sending to us, why are we not getting more food from Russia in exchange for this valuable tinplate, and more important food than Russian crab meat and salmon?

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that we are receiving 800,000 tons of coarse grain from Russia.

Stocks (Dispersal)

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Minister of Food what steps are being


taken for the protection and safeguard of food supplies in the event of heavy aerial attack.

Mr. F. Willey: Our defence measures include very comprehensive plans for the dispersal of our food stocks and prevention of damage by fire or other destructive action but obviously, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree, it would not be in the public interest to publish any details of these plans.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Are any of the arrangements which are being made being circulated to local authorities, who are beginning to get interested in this matter?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the Minister not agree that possibly he could place all that stock in his own back garden?

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is looking all right.

Mr. Nicholson: Who has been drafting the replies of the hon. Gentleman today? Has not anybody in the Ministry of Food got a sense of humour?

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a sufficient quantity of tinned food for such an emergency?

Mr. John Tilney: Has the Minister considered offering storage space to our friends in America to store their food in this country?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Overseas Resources Development Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Ede.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 243.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[3.31 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Grey, C. F.


Albu, A. H
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Crawley, [...]
Grimond, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Crosland, C. A. R
Gunter, R. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Ayles, W. H.
Daines, P.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)


Bacon, Miss A.
Darling, G (Hillsboro')
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)


Balfour, A.
Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bartley, P.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardy, E. A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, A.


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Deer, G.
Harrison, J.


Benson, G.
Dodds, N N
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Beswick, F.
Donnelly, D.
Hayman, F. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Driberg, T. E N.
Herbison, Miss M


Bevin, Rt. Hon E (Woolwich, E.)
Dugdale, Rt Hon J (W. Bromwich)
Hobson, C. R


Bing, G. H. C
Dye, S
Holman, P.


Blenkinsop, A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Blyton, W R
Edelman, M
Houghton, Douglas


Boardman, H
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J.


Booth, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hubbard, T


Bottomley, A. G
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Bowden, H. W
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bowen, R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ewart, R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Field, Capt. W. J
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brooks. T. J. (Normanton)
Finch, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington E.)
Janner, B.


Brown, George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Jay, D. P. T


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Burke, W A
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, R. H


Burton, Miss E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Carmichael, James
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Chetwynd, G. R
Gilzean, A.
Keenan, W.


Clunie, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kenyon, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Coldrick, W.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Kinley, J.


Collick, P.
Greenwood, A. W J. (Rossendale)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Collindridge, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, F. (Newton)


Cook, T F.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)




Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Poole, Cecil
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondds, W.)


Logan, D. G.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


MacColl, J. E.
Porter, G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McGhee, H. G.
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


McGovern, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


McInnes, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mack, J. D.
Pursey, Commander H
Tomney, F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rankin, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


McLeavy, F.
Rees, Mrs. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Reeves, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Wade, D. W


Mann, Mrs. J.
Rhodes, H.
Wallace, H. W.


Manuel, A. C.
Richards, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mellish, R. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
West, D. G.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Moeran, E. W.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Monslow, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N E.)


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wigg, George


Morley, R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt, C A B


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Simmons C. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mort, D. L.
Slater, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Murray, J. D.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Nally, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Neal, H.
Sparks, J. A.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Oldfield, W. H
Steele, T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stross, Dr. B.
Yates, V. F.


Pannell, T. C.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.



Paton, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Delargy.




NOES


Aitken, W. T
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R, (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Astor, Hon. M.
Crouch, R F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir C S.


Baker, P.
Crowder, Capt. John F. E (Finchley)
Hay, John


Baldwin, A. E
Cundiff, F. W.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Heald, L. F.


Bell, R. M.
de Chair, S.
Heath, E. R.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
De la Bère, R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Deedes, W. F.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Black, C. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Donner, P. W
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bower, N.
Drayson, G. B
Hollis, M. C


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Drewe, C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt. J. A L
Hope, Lord J


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Dunglass, Lord
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.


Braine, B.
Duthie, W. S
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Eccles, D. M.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Howard, G. R, (St. Ives)


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bullus, Wing Commander E E
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Fort, R.
Hurd, A. R.


Butcher, H W.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. H. (Scotstoun)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M


Carson, Hon. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr T D. (Pollok)
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Channon, H.
Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
Jennings, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S.
Gammans, L D.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans E H. (Denbigh)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Clarke, Brig T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Glyn, Sir R
Kaberry, D


Clyde, J. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Keeling, E. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J E.
Gridley, Sir A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)







Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H
Stevens, G. P


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nutting, Anthony
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Langford-Holt, J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Osborne, C.
Summers, G. S.


Lindsay, Martin
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Linstead, H. N
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Llewellyn, D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pickthorn, K.
Teevan, L. T.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W)
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)


Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Low, A. R. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Tilney, John


Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, H. V
Touche, G. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Rayner, Brigadier R
Turner, H. F. L.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Redmayne, M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McAdden, S. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


McCallum, Maj. D.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
Vosper, D. F.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


McKibbin, A.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclay, Hon, J. S.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roper, Sir H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ropner, Cot. L.
Watkinson, H.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonden)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Russell, R. S.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maudling, R.
Scott, Donald
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Wills, G.


Mellor, Sir J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Molson, A H. E.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)
Wood, Hon. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, C E.
Spearman, A. C. M.



Nabarro, G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nicholson, G.
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Brigadier Macke on and


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)
Mr. Studholme.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

As amended, considered.

clause 2.—(FUNCTIONS AND CONSTITUTION OF OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORA- TION.)

3.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "and Central."
On the Committee stage of the Bill I promised to consider whether the area in which the Corporation were permitted to operate under the Bill should be that specified in the Bill—East and Central Africa—or should be confined to East Africa. As promised, I have considered the arguments that were then put forward, and I now bring forward the Amendment, which means that the Corporation's operations will be confined to East Africa. I think that this will meet the desires of the House.

Captain Crookshank: I am very glad that the Government have found it possible to accept this Amendment, because, of course, the same Amendment was moved from this side during the Committee stage. It is always very satisfactory for an Opposition to find that its suggestions are accepted, as they have been in this case.
I cannot understand why the words "and Central" ever got into the Bill at all. It must have been because of some inattention on the part of Ministers or the draftsman, because it was quite clearly laid down in the White Paper that the Corporation do not contemplate embarking on any other schemes in East Africa or elsewhere. If words mean anything, the White Paper shows that a decision has already been taken by the Corporation, at any rate in present circumstances, not to expand their activities beyond those which were laid down in the White Paper, which has been the subject of previous discussion in the House. As I say, we on this side saw no reason why the words should have crept into the Bill, but since they have crept in, we are very glad to see them kicked out by the right hon. Gentleman at our instigation.
In essence this is the right course to take, because now we have learnt that the very high purposes and the very wide range of operations which were envisaged in the original Act of 1948 can no longer effectively—and, in our view, properly—be carried out by the Overseas Food Corporation. It is just as well at this stage of re-organisation to make it quite clear, not only that the Corporation are to lose in future all the functions which Parliament originally gave them to extend their operations all over the world, but also that the functions left to the Corporation—that is to say, in their activities in Africa—should be very restricted.
We know from the White Paper that instead of grandiose plans of two or three million acres being put under cultivation, we are now contemplating only a quarter of a million acres or so, all of which, at present at any rate, is in East Africa. It seems just as well to make doubly certain that the Corporation cannot expand further and that, therefore, these words should be taken out of the Bill.
I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the force of the argument which we put up. While, obviously, it must be disappointing to the Overseas Food Corporation that their scope has been so much reduced, from the point of view of the taxpayer and of the House it is eminently satisfactory that we should have this complete limitation of their powers in the Measure which we are now passing. For that reason, we on this side very much welcome the Amendment, because not only is it sheer common sense, but it also happens to have been propounded by us in the first instance.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I support what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and I stress what was said from this side on the Committee stage that this does not mean that we are not interested in Central Africa. We all appreciate that there is a great deal to be done there, but we do not believe that the Corporation which is being re-formed is the right instrument for doing it. It may be that in due course the new Corporation will come into the Colonial Development Corporation. In the meantime, we are all agreed that this is the method of carrying out the work which we want to see done in that part of the world.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What we say here is reported elsewhere. Of course, we are interested in Central Africa, where there is a great deal to be done; and doing it will mean risks.

Mr. Rankin: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will claim the whole credit for the decision of my right hon. Friend to drop the two words which the Amendment proposes to delete. They will recall that during the Committee stage the retention of these words was queried from this side by myself and, I think, one or two of my hon. Friends.
Hon. Members opposite will, I am sure, recall that my objection to the retention of the words "and Central" was due to the fact that they raised the question of the representation of the Nyasaland Government on the Corporation. I stated then that if representation was allowed to the Government of Tanganyika, then by the insertion of the words "and Central" we automatically raised the question of representation by the Nyasaland Government. My right hon. Friend has decided, I think wisely, to leave out these two words. Therefore the problem I propounded does not seem to arise. I trust that hon. Members opposite will accept my assurance that there was at least doubt on this side of the House also in regard to the retention of these two words

Captain Crookshank: Of course the hon. Member made the point, but it was not a case of "one or two" but of a lone voice.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I was speaking from recollection. However, although I stood alone, I am sure I spoke for a number of hon. Members.

Mr. William Ross: The whole of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: The whole of Scotland at least. I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend to drop these words.

Mr. Frederic Harris: While accepting the assurance of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), I want him to realise that this Amendment was proposed after consideration from this side of the House and it was because the Colonial Secretary gave an assurance that he would have the matter looked at that we did not press it to a Division. It

causes me to wonder what the hon. Member for Tradeston and all those who have verbally supported him would have done if the matter had been pressed to a Division.
I appreciate the decision of the Minister because it gives us an opportunity of recognising that the Government under this new scheme are trying hard to concentrate on the East African venture, whereas there were many of us who had some disturbing feelings in allowing a more general reference, which gave the possibility of deviation of energies from the present East African scheme. I therefore support my hon. Friends in expressing appreciation because we recognise that the Minister in this case has met us quite considerably. We only wish that he could meet us similarly in other respects.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
and the initial investigations under this subsection shall not be carried out by members of the Corporation or by persons employed by the Corporation.
Clause 2 of the Bill, in subsection (1) as now amended by the last Amendment, charges the Overseas Food Corporation:
with the duty of securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects for production or processing in colonial territories in East Africa of foodstuffs or agricultural products other than foodstuffs, and for the marketing of foodstuffs or such products.
I hope the House will accept the Amendment, which certainly involves no political considerations. Its purpose is to ensure that the first investigation to be undertaken under the authority of the Overseas Food Corporation shall be carried out by people who do not belong to the Corporation, who are not managers of the Corporation, or who sit on the Board of the Corporation. It appears highly desirable that in this initial investigation there should be an independent approach by people with no interest in justifying the past actions of the Corporation, or the present proposals in the White Paper, or in this Bill.
Had we had the inquiry for which we asked the Government, it may be that we could have had an agreed Bill on the future project in East Africa. It would have been highly desirable if the House, then the Committee, and now the House


again had come to an agreed decision which would have been very much to the advantage of this country and our fellow citizens in Africa. That agreed decision alone would give security to the staff employed by the Corporation. Unfortunately, the Government rejected that inquiry and have chosen what is in effect a partisan solution and, because of that, we cannot have an agreed approach to the problems of the Corporation which we were anxious to achieve.
That was a decision of the Committee and I cannot refer to it now, but we have an opportunity of salvaging something from the wreck of our previous hopes and of having an impartial investigation at an early stage. The first investigation should be conducted by people who do not belong to the Corporation. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to say that already there have been two inquiries into the working of the Groundnut Scheme, but both were really in the nature of internal audits by people responsible to the Corporation. In each case the chairman was a member of the Board of the Corporation. Although they have had support from representatives of the Government of Tanganyika it is obviously to the advantage of the Government of Tanganyika that they should have some kind of scheme. However informed they are, it cannot be said that they can be expected to approach the problem quite dispassionately and objectively.
The people who sat on the former inquiries, however admirable, highly skilled and informed about tropical agriculture, should have been called as witnesses to the inquiries and not themselves have formed the panels of the inquiries. There was great scope for them to give information and to bear testimony before an impartial inquiry. I would once more commend to the House the two independent reports on tropical agriculture which we have had in the course of the last year, the Report of the West African Oil Seeds Mission and the Report on the Mechanisation of Tropical African Agriculture. Both these reports are in the nature of impartial inquiries and both carry a great deal more value because of their impartiality.
We should have an initial investigation carried out by people with no loyalty to the Corporation but with only a desire

to serve the British Empire as a whole, and particularly the people of East Africa and the United Kingdom. The sort of people we would have in mind to undertake an investigation of this kind would certainly include some people well versed in mechanised tropical agriculture. I should not be in order in referring at length to an Amendment discussed at another stage, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles) suggested the Department of Agriculture in Canada as being people peculiarly qualified to give advice on problems of large-scale mechanised agriculture. We should have liked to see someone nominated by the Department taking part in an investigation of this kind.
We are not suggesting that future investigations carried out under the authority of the Corporation must be by people who have no loyalty to the Corporation, but that the first investigation should be carried out by a quite independent people. Bearing in mind tragic losses and the sums of public money which were written off—and today is the concluding day of this tragic process—I hope we shall have full agreement on both sides of the House with this very modest proposal.

Mr. Rankin: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would give us a little guidance on one point? How long does he think this investigation would take and what would be the effect on the work of the Corporation while the investigation was going on? Would the work of the Overseas Food Corporation continue while the investigation was proceeding?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would depend on the instructions given to the inquiry as to how long the report would take. I would hope very much that it could report in a comparatively short time. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North, in making his proposal, suggested that they should be obliged to report in 12 months, but I am hoping that an investigation of this more limited character could be carried out a great deal quicker. I do not accept the view that an inquiry of so modest a kind would disturb the work of those on the ground. On the contrary, the knowledge that a report of this kind was coming from impartial people and would be given universal support by Parliament and the country,


would be of encouragement to the people on the ground, who would in the long run very much benefit from the proposal.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has said. This Clause deals not only with investigation, but also with the formulation and carrying out of projects. The Amendment deals only with the investigation. The independent investigation will not be dealing with the existing project, but with the new project for which this £6 million is being laid aside by the Government. There seems to be a good analogy for this proposal from what happens in the case of mining. A mining company that has information on a mining proposition somewhere in the world does not use its own engineers but gets a firm of consulting mining engineers to make an independent report. In the case of an oil project, it is not the oil men but an independent consulting oil surveyor who makes a report.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member will keep in mind, no doubt, that there was an independent investigation into the original scheme. An inquiry was made into the possibilities and to advise us what actions should be taken. The hon. Member is therefore now condemning the results.

Captain Duncan: The fact that there was an independent investigation in the past does not necessarily condemn the principle of having an independent investigation when the organisation is on the ground. As a matter of fact, it was the method by which the scheme was carried out rather than the investigation that is to be condemned. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment, if not the actual wording, at any rate the principle, and that they will agree to the idea that we should prospect the new project in Africa by independent investigators before any of the £6 million of the taxpayers' money is spent.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is quite clear where we stand in regard to this scheme. This Clause to which this Amendment has been moved, lays down what are the powers of the Corporation and the functions with which it is charged. The Corporation is charged with the duty
of securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects for production or pro-

cessing in colonial territories in East Africa of foodstuffs or agricultural products other than foodstuffs, and for the marketing of foodstuffs or such products.
It was made very clear, by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading, in the White Paper, and during the debates on the Committee stage, that the Corporation do not contemplate any scheme other than the present scheme. The Bill authorises the Corporation to go on on the understanding that the only scheme in contemplation is the scheme outlined in the White Paper. I wish, therefore, to examine the Amendment in this context.
I was not clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) whether he intended what the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), suggested, that this initial investigation should be an investigation into the scheme outlined in the White Paper. I say that because the hon. and gallant Member spoke about the £6 million of taxpayers' money it is estimated this scheme will cost over six years and said that none of the money should be spent until there has been an investigation. I understand that the effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be that we should stop where we are now and do nothing further until there is this initial investigation which may last for 12 months. Is that the meaning of the Amendment? Does it refer to the existing scheme, or to schemes beyond?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our Amendment refers, of course, to the plans outlined in the White Paper. The Government themselves state in the Bill that the Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of "securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects," which projects come within the ambit of the White Paper. Our Amendment refers to the projects outlined in the White Paper. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop the carrying on, on a care and maintenance basis, of any work now going on in East Africa.

Mr. Griffiths: I wanted that to be made clear. The House has already on two occasions settled this issue. It was settled on Second Reading when the Opposition moved an Amendment calling for an inquiry into the scheme contained in the White Paper. The House rejected that Amendment, and the Bill was given a


Second Reading on the definite understanding that it authorised the Government to proceed on the scheme outlined in the White Paper. This is an attempt on Report to undo something that was done by the House on Second Reading and in Committee, when we had the same kind of proposal put forward, in much more specific words, in an Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), who suggested that the investigation should be made by certain bodies and that it should begin next year and be completed by January the following year.
It is clear that if this Amendment were accepted there would be an investigation, but we do not know who would make the investigation, nor do we know to whom they would make their report. Presumably they would make their report to the Corporation, because this is an Amendment to a Clause which charges the Corporation with the duty. There would be an investigation into the scheme outlined in the White Paper, the investigators would report to the Corporation, and the Corporation, presumably, would give their view whether it was to be accepted or not, and then pass it on to the Secretary of State, who would then come back to the House. In the meantime, the hon. Member suggests that the work should be put on a care and maintenance basis.
One thing we have learned from all that has happened is that talk about putting a scheme of this kind, in its present condition, on a care-and-maintenance basis is nonsense. What would it mean? Now, while we are debating this scheme as outlined in the White Paper, we are, as part of it, clearing 40,000 acres in the Southern Province. Is that to stop? If this Bill is given its Third Reading, we hope that it will soon be an Act of Parliament. Are we to say, "Stop the work in order that this investigation can take place?" Are we to stop that clearing? If the felling were completed before this suggested investigation, if what has been done had to be put on a care-and-maintenance basis, and no more work was to be done until the investigation had been carried out, the land would in a short time go back to bush and be lost.
Let us be frank. This is a wrecking Amendment, and if carried it would

destroy the whole scheme. We have already decided, after full and lengthy discussion in this House, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to reject proposals for an inquiry. I can only ask the House to reject such a proposal now. It is perfectly clear that all this Amendment means is, "Stop now, have an investigation, then the investigators will report to the Corporation and the Corporation will be asked to express its views." In the meantime, everything must stop and that would wreck the whole of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. So far as I recollect, the House has already rejected the proposal contained in this Amendment on two previous occasions. Is it now in order to debate it a third time?

Mr. Speaker: That is a reflection on me. I selected the Amendment. I considered that it was a new proposal and was, therefore, in order.

Mr. Rankin: May I say that I asked for my own guidance, and sought to cast no personal reflection on you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I quite understand.

Mr. F. Harris: I cannot understand the conclusion which the Secretary of State has drawn in this matter. I was concerned with the proposed new Clause dealing with an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman surely appreciates that this Amendment follows on the proposal in Clause 2 (1), in which the Government themselves lay down that:
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation.…
This Amendment merely states how we consider that investigation should be carried out. The Colonial Secretary has "passed the buck" to us and asked what we seek to do by this Amendment. He must appreciate that he himself is responsible for the word "investigation." It is in his Bill. Therefore, I should like to ask him what was his view of "investigation" when he put that word into the subsection. The Colonial Secretary must have had something in his mind. We understand what
formulation and carrying out of projects…


means. Investigation means a form of inquiry of some kind.
We realise that the White Paper must have had something to do with someone else's previous investigations, but those are over, and what we are now considering is the new position which will apply after 1st April. It is an artful stunt to pass back to us the onus of explaining what is meant, but the Colonial Secretary must make up his mind what he desires. The word "investigation" is his. I am suggesting that when he included that word he had something in mind and intended to have some type of inquiry, of investigation.
We expand that proposal by saying in our Amendment, which covers an entirely new point and has nothing to do with the suggestion which was previously put forward, that an entirely new inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may moan about it because they do not want an inquiry. Hon. Members do not want any inquiry into this Groundnut Scheme if they can get away with it. That is what is worrying them. The White Paper makes it clear that they do not want an investigation.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We shall welcome a full inquiry provided that it goes into Cabinet proceedings during the war.

Mr. Harris: Let us keep to the subject we are discussing.
It is the Colonial Secretary's own stipulation, in this subsection, that there shall be a duty of investigation. We, therefore, say in this Amendment that if an investigation into a scheme of this kind is to be carried out, for whatever reason the Colonial Secretary has in mind, it is crazy that it should be carried out by the employees, the same staff, who are working the scheme as a whole. That is all this Amendment suggests. Surely each one of us realises the sanity of that proposal. Why does one have auditors and other people to go over one's factories and give one a considered report after investigation? One does not use one's own staff when one wants such an inquiry. That is implied by the very word "investigation."
I suspect that what has happened here is in line with what has happened in con-

nection with the whole project all the way through. I think "investigation" has got into the Bill by mistake because if it has not the Colonial Secretary can surely tell us why it is there. What does he want? He is the one who is stipulating that there shall be investigation. We are only asking that if the scheme is investigated it shall not be done by the staff engaged in it but by investigators from outside.
I am, frankly, very anxious to see any type of inquiry that will give confidence to the public and this House as a whole. I should like to see this new scheme going ahead from the point of view of the employees themselves, the people in Tanganyika and everyone concerned. The Government have made a mistake in this matter. Having said that, I return to the issue raised by this Amendment. The Government have planned to do something; we know that they are trying to carry out some new scheme and that this Bill is the basis of it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I thought I had made it clear, first, that the schemes we now propose to carry out are set out in the White Paper, after investigation in two cases, Kongwa and the Southern Region, by the working parties mentioned earlier. I understand that the position sought to be established by this Amendment is that we should now stop and have another investigation before we go on with what has already been decided.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry, but the Colonial Secretary must understand that this proposal is in his Bill. This Scheme is to operate from 1st April. It is his word that it shall be the duty of the Corporation to investigate—

The Minister of Food (Mr. Webb): No.

Mr. Harris: The Minister of Food makes enough mistakes. We have had enough trouble about those issues in this matter. With the greatest respect, I suggest that Ministers should know something about the words they put in their own Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I am doing so. The Government have put in the Bill the word "investigation."

Mr. J. Griffiths: Of course there is investigation. The Scheme outlined in the White Paper is the result of investigation.

Mr. Harris: I am glad that the Secretary of State has interrupted in that


way because if he is "kidding" himself he is not "kidding" us. One of two things has happened here. Either the word has got into the Bill by mistake, which frankly I believe to be the case; or else the Minister knows nothing about what he wants to investigate. If he means what he says by including "investigation," it is our contention that one would not carry out a sensible investigation into anything like this project with one's own staff. If any other word had been used that would be quite understandable. "Investigation" means either that, or an inquiry, and if that is so it should be carried out by people other than employees of the Overseas Food Corporation for the sake of the employees of the Corporation themselves, for their own satisfaction and contentment.
I therefore strongly support this proposal. It is no good the Colonial Secretary trying to say that this is another twist to get some inquiry again. It is a follow-up of his own words. As the Colonial Secretary and the Minister of Food and everyone knows, they have made such a mess of this whole thing, one way and another, by the things which have been put into various papers, that this is either another error or they do not intend to carry out what they themselves have put in this Bill. But if they do, we want an impartial set of people to carry out this investigation.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. Gentleman used the wrong argument in rejecting this Amendment. He gave a number of reasons—which no doubt sounded very good to him but which sounded less valid to us—why there should be no further investigation. I consider we are entitled to ask, as indeed my hon. Friend has asked, why this word "investigation" still appears in Clause 2 of the Bill?
The right hon. Gentleman says there has been an inquiry in the Kongwa and in the Southern Province, and why, therefore, do we want another investigation? We are entitled to ask for what purpose does the word "investigation" appear in Clause 2 of the Bill. To what is the new investigation to be applied? Is it to be applied to the Kongwa, the Southern Province or what? If there is to be no investigation we ought to leave the word out. I do not understand why the Government and the right hon. Gentleman

have any doubt about accepting this Amendment.
In view of the unbroken record of broken promises and false hopes, and the millions of pounds spent on the groundnut fiasco up to date, I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been anxious to start off, so to speak, all clear. Either in the Second Reading debate or when speaking on one of the Clauses in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman himself referred specifically to his, quite natural, desire to start off with a clean slate and to wipe out the past. We understand that. If we were in his position—and I am glad we are not—we should all want to do exactly the same.
I cannot imagine any stronger reason for an independent investigation than the natural desire of the right hon. Gentleman to start off with a clean sheet and to wipe the past clean. With the best will in the world, any investigation carried out by senior members of the Overseas Food Corporation, who themselves have had an unhappy association with the past, cannot possibly seem to be either wholly impartial or wholly dispassionate. That is impossible. On both psychological and practical grounds I should have thought that in his own interest the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Again we hear a reference to an investigation by members of the Corporation and by no one else. This scheme is the result of investigations into the areas, including the Southern Province where the biggest development is taking place, and those investigations were undertaken by two working parties. It is true they were set up and presided over by the Corporation, but the working parties included people of very wide experience and considerable knowledge. During the Second Reading debate I read out the names of the members of the working party and asked hon. Members opposite whether they accepted them as being people with real knowledge and experience who were competent to express an opinion.
I do therefore say to hon. Members opposite that this scheme in the White Paper, which is the only one contemplated, is the result of considerable investigation by two working parties which contained a majority of members who were not members of or employees of the Corporation.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: We clearly understand that point. But what the right hon. Gentleman has not explained, and perhaps one of his hon. Friends will explain, is why, if the scheme in the White Paper is the result of two investigations which have already taken place, there is this word "investigation" in Clause 2 of the Bill and to what does it apply?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The background of this discussion is the fact that the country and the House have no confidence in the ability of the Government or their competence to handle this further project. They have forfeited the confidence of the country. Whatever may be their view about the Opposition, the Government must know that the nation wants an inquiry, even if the Government does not. I should have thought that in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would have given us an answer which was a little less "pernickety" than the one offered. It was a "pernickety" answer. He has taken the Clause by word and comma and so on. We all could do that. I could do it For example, if it is his argument that we must look at the Clause precisely as it stands, well, let us look at it.
When this Corporation starts its work on 1st April it will look first of all to the Act which sets out its duties. The principal duty of the Corporation is set out in Clause 2, so that the first thing that the Corporation will do is to look at Clause 2. What does it find to be its duty? Not to do any felling, not to do any clearing at all, according to the word of this Act, but to secure
the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects…
What projects? For felling? For clearing? No,
for production or processing…of foodstuffs or agricultural products…
So if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be detailed and "pernickety" so can we. We have the right to ask that he amends this Clause to include the words, "clearing" and, "felling." But I am not pressing that because, as the House understands, I am saying that his is a "pernickety" argument.
Let us proceed to the next stage. Why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to include this word "investigation" if his intention is that the Corporation shall be informed that one of the things they must

not do under any circumstances is to investigate? That is a very odd thing, and if that is what he says, he had better have an Amendment now to delete the word "investigation." Then, I hope, we shall have another Amendment to put it in again.
Let us take this a stage further. It was stated that this is a wrecking Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), speaking of this Amendment, said that while this investigation might be going on things should be proceeding on what he called "a care and maintenance basis." What do we mean by that? I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that everything should stop. That is absurd. If we are harvesting we go on harvesting. If we are clearing we go on clearing, and if we are in the middle of felling we go on. Nobody but a lunatic would suggest stopping all that. But while proceeding with that, we do not start any vast new enterprise. That is what it means.

Mr. J. Griffiths: But the hon. Member mentioned stopping precisely.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Griffiths: He said it.

Mr. Stewart: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is again being "pernickety." That is not what is meant here at all and so it is by no means a wrecking Amendment. On the contrary, it is my conviction that this is the only way to prevent a wreck. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman look at this from the point of view of the country as a whole? Supposing he could not accept this Amendment, and I would understand some of his arguments, could not he do this—and I think we should be much satisfied—could not he himself indicate to the House that he would try to get some expert person or persons to go out there within the next couple of months and make a report to him?
4.30 p.m.
Today at an official luncheon I had the pleasure of meeting Professor Hardie, who is perhaps the world's leading expert on dry-land farming in Saskatchewan. He is about to go to Ceylon on loan from


the Canadian Government to the Government of Ceylon to advise them, after investigation, upon their dry-land farming problems. The problem in Kongwa, the Southern Province and that part of the world generally, is not very different from that on what are called the Canadian dry-land farms. I have seen both places. There are vast areas with very little rainfall. Professor Hardie told us how tricky is the problem of cultivation in the prairies where there is only a relatively small rainfall. That is precisely the problem in Kongwa.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that while he cannot give way on this Amendment, because of Government policy, he recognises the view of the House, which represents in a large measure the view of the country; and that, therefore, in deference to that view, he will undertake within the next month or two to pick out a couple of leading experts who have nothing to do with the Colonial Office or the Corporation, but who are recognised experts on these problems. I ask him to send them out to look at this business and to advise him. That could be done within a couple of months. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do that? I appeal to him in the interest of the Scheme, and in the interest of democratic Government and honest administration to make that gesture to the House.

Mr. Donald Wade: I hope that the Minister will either accept the Amendment or give effect to the spirit of it by making some arrangement such as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has suggested. This is not a wrecking Amendment. I understood from the Minister that if an investigation is carried out by a working party it will not interfere with the carrying on of the Scheme, but if there is to be an investigation by—

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Scheme is being carried out now and this Bill will continue it for the period outlined. This is as a result of a working party, and it is clear that the Amendment would stop it.

Mr. Wade: But everything did not stop because a working party was making an investigation. Presumably, further investigation is contemplated. The Bill charges the Corporation with a duty. It is not

merely an option, but a duty to secure an investigation. The suggestion is that independent persons should take part in the initial investigation. That is the essence of the proposal which is a reasonable one. It has been called a modest proposal, and I am sure that it is. But underlying this proposal is a matter of principle about how one ought to deal with these commercial projects which are owned and controlled by the State.
We all wish this Scheme to be a success. It is intended to benefit not only ourselves, but the people who live in Colonial Territories. Nevertheless, it is a commercial enterprise. Perhaps the word "enterprise" is not the right one in view of what has occurred: I will call it a commercial undertaking. We want it to succeed. There is no doubt that if this was a private concern which had got into financial difficulties, and it had been agreed that a modified scheme should be continued, the very minimum that the shareholders and creditors would insist upon would be some kind of impartial investigation in which outside people should take part.
We have gone very far already in this Bill in granting special privileges to this Corporation. The principle to which I have referred is that a commercial concern owned and controlled by the State should not enjoy special privileges. That principle is important. We have gone quite a long way already in failing to apply that principle, but, in a modified way, the amendment would ensure that it is applied here. Therefore, on grounds of principle I think that this suggestion is right. I do not think that any argument has been advanced to suggest that these independent advisers would be other than helpful, and I am sure that it would create greater confidence in the country if this course was followed.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The attitude of the Government to this Amendment is typical of their attitude to the whole Scheme. They have never at any time been willing to admit that they are wrong and that some change needs to be made. I believe that the origin of this subsection is that somebody merely incorporated in this Bill a chunk from the 1948 Act without really considering the effect of the words. If the Minister was honest with the House he


would have to say, after taking advice, that that is the explanation of this very curious subsection; that it is not what he intended, and that he would look at the matter again and have the words altered in another place if necessary.
If we look at the actual form of these words, we see that they are ridiculous in relation to what the Minister proposes to do. The Clause says:
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty.…
Presumably, that has regard to something which they are to do in the future. What investigation is to take place in the future? I think, so far as this Scheme is concerned, there is none at all. The Minister will probably have to admit that his only power to carry on this Scheme is under subsection (1) of this Bill and if he proposes to carry it on without an investigation, I am not at all sure that the whole thing will not be ultra vires, because the statutory duty laid upon him is
…the investigation, formulation and carrying out.…
Apparently, he is saying that he has not the slightest intention of carrying out that statutory duty in connection with this scheme. I think that in that case the whole scheme will be ultra vires.
Clearly, there has been a mistake in this matter. The wording of the 1948 Act is not appropriate to present circumstances. If the Minister is obstinate and insists that the words are appropriate, he must concede that there must be an investigation. If there is to be an investigation, why not have it done independently? If the investigation supports the scheme, will not public confidence be reinforced and will not everybody be more favourable towards it?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have made two or three attempts to make this clear. May I try again? The scheme we are proposing now is the one outlined in the White Paper. That scheme is the result of an investigation conducted by the Corporation. To assist them in that investigation they appointed two working parties, one for Kongwa and one for the Southern Province. They asked them to investigate and report to the Corporation on what schemes should be conducted in future. As a result of their consideration, the

Corporation put forward a scheme which, with certain modifications which we explained on the Second Reading of this Bill, we have accepted.
Therefore, there has been an investigation, and it is as a result of it that this scheme is now put forward. If in the future any schemes were put forward, there would be similar technical investigations made by the Corporation. I asked whether this Amendment referred to existing schemes or future schemes. We are not discussing future investigations on future schemes. It is clear from what was said by the mover of the Amendment that the effect of the Amendment would be to have another investigation of the type which has taken place. Whilst we were conducting that further investigation, everything would stop.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If I may deal with that intervention, I think there are at least two points which present themselves in it. First, in regard to the substance, it is quite true that there may have been these previous investigations; there may have been working parties and so on; but what the right hon. Gentleman will not appreciate is that all that took place before the full horror of the Groundnut Scheme had burst upon the country, and before it was realised that a vast sum of money had been wasted, a result, which I think has done grave damage to colonial development. From the psychological point of view, will the Minister not realise how much benefit he would give to his new scheme if it were to be fortified once again by independent advice and support? I am perfectly certain that, from the point of view of the country as a whole, it would be a very great benefit to colonial development, which is the object which we all have in view.
So far as interim policy is concerned, I think that has been dealt with by my hon. Friends, and I do not propose to say anything more about it at this stage. It would be quite possible to have this independent investigation in a short space of time, and to continue working on the present basis during the time it was taking place. We come back to the legal point, which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with. Under what powers is he proposing to carry on his new scheme? According to the wording of the Clause,


before he can do that he must investigate. He does not get any powers until the passing of this Bill, and, when this Bill becomes an Act, it is then his duty to investigate, formulate and carry out—

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is an Amending Bill to amend the Act, and that, therefore, there would be continuation from the Act to the Amending Bill, which, together, will provide the authority for carrying on. We are not repealing the whole of the Act, and, therefore, the authority is the authority contained in the present Act.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the original Act more closely, he will see that, as far as the powers of the Corporation to carry out schemes are concerned, they are solely contained in Clause 2 of this Bill. I invite him to look at it and to see what has happened, because the draftsman has taken a chunk of a section from the original Act and put it into this Bill. I suggest that, so far as carrying out the Groundnut Scheme is concerned, the Minister's only power after 1st April is derived from this Clause. Once the Minister concedes that he, in other words, concedes that he was wrong in his last intervention, and I really believe that he was wrong. Let us suppose, at any rate, that he was wrong, because we are trying to produce a workable Bill, and there is no particular party point in this business of draftsmanship. I am simply seeking to produce a Clause that will mean something, because I do not think the present one means anything at all.
If the Minister's only power to carry out the Groundnut Scheme is the authority derived from this Clause, how does he suggest that he has power to go on with the scheme without another investigation? I think he will be in serious danger if he does not look into the wording of this Clause and have a proper Amendment made, but that is a question of the letter of the law. The real point of substance is that there should be another independent check before this scheme goes forward, and from which he would gain an immense addition to public confidence. If he does not do so, I cannot think that he will be doing any good service to the cause of colonial development.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: The Colonial Secretary has been working up a certain amount of synthetic heat about this matter. He knows perfectly well what we want to do. We certainly do not want to wreck this Bill, but we are out to see that this new enterprise does start off under efficient auspices. We want the people to have confidence in it, but the attitude which the Minister is taking will certainly give no one any confidence whatever in the new enterprise.
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the Overseas Food Corporation is a thoroughly bankrupt and discredited organisation. It is bankrupt in a way in which I have never known any other organisation to go bankrupt. They ask us to write off more money than they have actually spent. They are not even paying threepence in the pound to their creditors, but now they are asking for £6½ million more money. It is perfectly fantastic, and we should reject any demands put to us until there is a proper investigation of this new Scheme.
If the Colonial Secretary wants to know our candid opinion, it is that we have no confidence whatever in his administration, and we are not satisfied with the investigation that has been carried out. Why should he not be businesslike in this matter? What gain is there to anybody in allowing a public corporation to go on in a way in which no one would ever allow a private business to continue?
The only people who are opposing this Amendment are hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they believe in public corporations. We have always had far less faith in them than they have had, and now we have precious little faith at all in them; but if hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves believe in these public corporations, why do they not insist on this new venture starting off under proper auspices? It should be for hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not us, to demand this investigation. Why is it that every corporation set up by the Government, whether it concerns coal, electricity or anything else, has to surround itself with mystery and blanket itself against all forms of competition? Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to make sure that this form of farming is the right form. Do they imagine that the British public will


go on for ever putting up the money for one dud scheme after another, without having proper investigation? It is hon. Members opposite who should be putting forward this Amendment.
So far as we are concerned, from the narrow, political point of view this will merely provide us with a good speech for the weekend. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should accuse us of trying to wreck the Scheme. If he himself has any confidence at all in it, he should be the very first to welcome the fullest investigation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I hope that the Colonial Secretary will answer the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been in too much of a hurry to jump to the conclusion that this is a wrecking Amendment. If it were, I think that would be a reflection on the Chair for having selected it. Further, the right hon. Gentleman has not seemed able to understand the points which lie behind it and which have been put forward several times from this side of the House.
The last explanation which the Minister gave was not relevant to the points which my hon. Friends have made, because there is the inescapable fact, from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away, that the Overseas Food Corporation, according to the Bill,
shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects.
It is all very well talking about going back to the 1948 Act and saying that that Act, together with this Bill when it is passed, will provide the authority, but it seems to me that there is a further point to those which have already been made. Although it is stated in the White Paper that there shall only be schemes as already set out in the White Paper, this Clause gives authority to the Overseas Food Corporation to go ahead with future schemes. Quite apart from any points already made from this side of the House, I put it to the Colonial Secretary that, if there are any future schemes proposed to be undertaken, the Amendment now before the House would be very relevant to those future schemes.
The right hon. Gentleman has set up an Economic and Advisory Council, with

some very distinguished people on it, and there is another group from which he may select individuals to go out and have a look at this Scheme. Whatever his advisers have said, he does seem to jump to conclusions, and not to understand the real point and effect of the Amendment. If he will have another look into the matter, he will see that, in regard to any future development which may be envisaged, there is a great deal to be said for this Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really have a look at this Amendment, because to say that we are trying to wreck the Clause is absolutely wrong. All we are trying to do is to make it read somewhat differently. The Clause at present reads:
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation,…
and we say that that investigation should not be made by the Corporation or by anybody representing it. All we are asking the Minister to do is what any business concern does. If they get an idea that something is not right in the factory, they do not send members of the factory round; they get an outside expert to walk round the factory, to talk to the people at work, to watch the machinery at work and to see what is happening, and make a report accordingly.
We are merely asking that when the Minister makes the investigation which he says is necessary, he should have it made by somebody outside with expert knowledge, and that he should accept that advice. We shall shortly be asked to vote a sum of money. All we are saying is that before that money is voted, we should have an independent inquiry, carried out by an expert who knows his job, and not by people whose interests are in the Corporation.

Mr. John Grimston: In his speech rejecting this Amendment, the Colonial Secretary used the argument about delay; but, of course, there is no question of delay in this, and even if there were, his argument that delay means a lot of land going back to bush is really a very old and discredited argument. Indeed, his own plan is to put 60,000 acres at Kongwa into a state which he would call going back to bush, and it has certainly been shown over and over


again that there is nothing in that argument at all, and indeed that in certain parts it is highly beneficial that that should happen.
His second point was that the scheme in the White Paper is the only thing in contemplation. I would point out to him that the scheme in the White Paper is by no means the only thing in contemplation. I know he has not been out there yet, but he is proposing to visit East Africa, and I hope he will go to Urambo to find out for himself whether what he said about the scheme in the White Paper being the only project in contemplation is true or not. I think he will find it is not.
There are two or three proposals in that particular area which are not mentioned in the White Paper but which are under very active contemplation. For instance, we know about the tobacco project there. Perhaps I ought to mention that I have an interest in tobacco growing in Africa. If that experiment is a success, quite obviously the proposal will be made greatly to expand that particular form of cultivation, which will mean the spending of large sums of money, which may or may not be justified, but which we think should be investigated more closely by an independent body.
Again, there is a large project under consideration at Urambo to drain the Malagarasi swamp and to spread the water over a vast area of land, an operation which would involve a very heavy expenditure. If that scheme is to go forward, surely it should be investigated by an impartial body. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands at present to prevent that kind of project being undertaken at some time in the future, and we are only seeking to say that such projects should be impartially investigated. They may or may not be sound projects, but let us have somebody who is not interested in them to report on whether they are or not.
There is a third project which, also, was not mentioned in the White Paper—the growing of rice in the small valleys or dambos which it is proposed to dam. Such an undertaking would cost a considerable sum of money. In these circumstances, therefore, I put it to the Minister that his arguments for rejecting this Amendment are, in the first place, discredited by his own plan in the White

Paper, and, secondly, are based on a misapprehension on what is, in fact, being investigated at this moment and which is not mentioned anywhere in the White Paper. In view of what has been said, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) moved his Amendment, he at least moved it in reasonable language. I am sure, therefore, that he will have some measure of regret for the fact that his camp followers have joined in the debate in somewhat different language. We have witnessed this afternoon what can only be described as a series of filibustering speeches in order to try to sabotage the working of the Bill.

Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order. Is it right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman should accuse hon. Members on this side of the House of attempting to sabotage the Bill?

Mr. Rankin: I listened to all that was said by hon. Members opposite, and, quite frankly, my honest opinion is that all that we have witnessed so far can be described by the words I use. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) described this as a modest Amendment. I think it is completely immodest, because it is not clothed in the least vestige of thought. To me, the issue here is a perpectly simple one. The Overseas Food Corporation is a business body, charged with carrying out certain business purposes. Is there any hon. Member on the other side—

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Rankin: I am afraid I cannot thank my hon. Friend for that most unhelpful remark.
Is there any hon. Member opposite who is prepared to say that a company about to embark on a business venture first of all selects some independent body of investigators to examine the project before it enters into it?

Mr. F. Harris: Mr. F. Harris rose—

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry I cannot give way.

Mr. Harris: But the hon. Gentleman has just asked a question.

Mr. Rankin: Any company would assume that to be their own particular responsibility. They would not embark upon such a venture unless they had first of all investigated it themselves. From what I know of business firms, they like to carry out their own investigations and to please themselves. After all, it is their responsibility. As I have said, this Corporation are a business body and they are being held responsible, as are most other business organisations, for any investigation that is necessary before they proceed to carry out any particular project.
Looking at it merely from the point of view of accepted practice, there is nothing in the Clause that invalidates the proposal which my right hon. Friend is making. It is perfectly simple from that point of view. We are charging them to do certain work, and, at the same time, we are laying on them the responsibility—and the proper responsibility—for, first of all, investigating what they propose to do. I think that conforms to sound business practice, and because I think that, I say that the Amendment as moved and the speeches made in support of it are, as I have described them, sheer fillibustering.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I think the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has neither read the Clause nor listened to what the Minister said, because if he looked at the Clause he would see that the Overseas Food Corporation
shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation.…
If he had listened to the Minister he would have known that the Minister had said there would be no investigation before carrying on with this particular scheme.

Mr. Rankin: Was the hon. and learned Member present when the Minister was replying?

Mr. Strauss: I was present. I apologise to the Minister for not having been here for the whole of the debate.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. and learned Member has attributed words to me that I never used. I did not say it was to go on without any investigation. My whole point was that it was going on after investigation.

Mr. Strauss: Let me make myself clear. I meant without further investigation after the passing of this Bill into law. The Law Officers will, I think, confirm what I am now saying, that the words,
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation,…
speak from the date at which this Bill receives the Royal Assent and comes into force. Therefore, in saying that there shall be an investigation it means after the passage of this Bill into law.
I am going to confine myself entirely, in the short remarks that I shall make, to this single legal point. I do not wish to repeat any of the other points made, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the legal point has more substance than he has hitherto attributed to it. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is an amending Bill, and when it has been carried into law it will be an amending Act. But that does not mean that one need not look at the terms of the statute; and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 2 as it now stands he will see that it does two things, among others. In the first subsection it says,
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation…
and so on. As far as that is concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the investigation there referred to must be an investigation after this Bill receives the Royal Assent.
We then come to the further question whether it is possible for the Minister to carry on with the present scheme under the Act that this Bill is amending. I think it must have been some such idea as that that he had in mind when he made his last important intervention. But I think he will find that it cannot be carried out under the principal Act because he will find that Clause 2 (2) of the Bill says that,
Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the principal Act shall cease to have effect…
When this Bill receives the Royal Assent and comes into force, the old powers cease to have effect and the new powers only refer to an investigation after the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Collick: So what?

Mr. Strauss: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do what he says he wishes, namely to carry out the scheme he has described without further investigation, then he must amend the present Clause. That is the answer to the very admirable and brief intervention, "So what?" which I appreciate.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me, may I say that first of all there is the existing Act which charges the Overseas Food Corporation, as does the Bill, with
Securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out.…
under Section 3 (1, a) of the principal Act. Under that power the Corporation ordered an investigation, as I have already described. As a result of that investigation and proposals submitted by the investigators, proposals were formulated. These proposals are now in operation—felling for example. As from the coming into operation of this new Bill they will continue. One of the major changes in the Bill is the transfer of responsibility to the Colonial Office on 1st April. The duty of investigating and formulating will exist under the old Act up to 31st March and will exist under the new Bill, when it becomes an Act, from 1st April.

Mr. Strauss: That duty may have existed under the old Act until the subsection concerned ceases to have effect under this new Bill. But what I am casting doubt about is the power of the Minister, in view of the terms of the new Bill which will be the new Act, to proceed with the present scheme he has outlined without further investigation.
I have the highest possible respect for any legal advice that may have been given to the right hon. Gentleman by the Law Officers of the Crown. I am sorry for his sake, and for the sake of the House, that neither of them is present at the moment. But if the Minister can assure the House that the point has been fully considered by the Law Officers, and he is advised that these powers undoubtedly exist, I should not wish to press the point further. I can only say that I am putting the point forward with complete good faith. It seems to me, on the wording of the old section together with this new Clause, that the doubt which my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), put forward a few minutes ago does exist, and I support what he said.

Captain Crookshank: I think that through no fault of his own the Minister simply has not had the time to apply his mind to the problem raised by this Amendment. He only saw it this morning, owing to the way the Bill is being rushed through. We only finished the Committee stage late on Monday night, too late to put down Amendments on the Order Paper so that the Minister could see them yesterday. Therefore, it was only today that he could see what we were proposing in the way of Amendments.
He has, therefore, not unnaturally, fallen into the easy trap, when seeing the word "investigation," of remembering that somewhere in his brief there was something to the effect, "We do not want any more investigation." That little parrot keeps coming out of its cage and is the theme of all we have heard from the Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not read from a brief."] The Minister is clever enough to learn it off by heart, but the fact still remains that the arguments he keeps producing against investigation are not apt arguments on this Amendment.
Let the Minister look at the Amendment once again. The Amendment itself is narrow, but the debate has run over points of great importance. The Amendment says that if there is to be an investigation at any time into these matters the persons carrying them out shall not be members of the Corporation or their employees. That is a self-contained proposition which I should have thought the Minister would gladly accept, because if one is to have any investigations at all it is much better that they should be carried out by people who are impartial, who are known to be impartial, and who are seen to be impartial.
None of us denies that the members of the working party were experts and reasonable people to be brought into consultation in matters of this kind, but we think that people from outside are the right members of an investigating body rather than these people, who are more suitable as witnesses to go before such an investigating body, than to be members of the investigating body itself.
That is the point of this Amendment. If there is an investigation in the future, let it be carried out by persons who are completely impartial, who are not members of the Board of the Corporation and are not employees of the Corporation. The Minister was anxious to refute the suggestion that there ever would be any investigation at all.
First of all, he said that the House had been over this question twice already and that it had been settled by the House and the Committee, but that is not so. What was rejected on Second Reading was our reasoned Amendment stating that we did not wish to proceed with the Bill until there had been an investigation. That has nothing to do with this Amendment. Similarly, on the Committee stage my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), put down a new Clause which said that at a certain date, later—specifying the date—there should be an investigation carried out by people who were to be nominated by specific nominating authorities. That is quite a different thing.
This Amendment says that if there are to be any investigations at all they must be by outside, impartial persons. Apparently the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment, but, since he made a statement to that effect, the debate has gone a great deal wider, because two of my hon. and learned Friends have taken up a point which the Minister himself started—about whether there was to be any investigation at all. In turning down this Amendment the Minister once again reminded us that there had been working parties and that, as a result of the working parties, the White Paper had been produced. He said it was upon the basis of that White Paper that the Overseas Food Corporation would carry on in the future.
That may or may not be the case, but there is nothing about it in the Bill. That is merely the administrative effect of decisions taken by the Corporation and by the Minister. Nothing in this Clause says that, as a result of the investigation by the working party and as a result of White Paper No. 8125, these proposals are to be carried out. There is nothing in the Bill to say that; in fact, the Bill is not dealing with that problem. It deals with quite different matters and hon.

Members have only to read the short title of the Bill to see what it does deal with.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite correctly, that there had been these working parties and he said that, because of them, investigation in the future was no longer necessary. He said that what investigation needed to be done had already been done and had, in fact, finished. But is it really finished? I understood—and I was rather reinforced in my view by what was said by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston)—that there were still investigations going on in different parts of East Africa. I should like to know whether it is not a fact that Mr. Frank Sykes, who was one of the independent members of the working party, is now out in East Africa investigating still further some of the possible projects which might be joined up with the plan under the White Paper. As far as I know he is out there and I should like to have that confirmed, because if it is so it tends to disprove what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—that all the investigations had been concluded and that there were to be no more.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When I began my speech I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question. I wanted to know exactly what we were discussing and whether this Amendment was intended to deal with any further development, other than the existing scheme, or whether it applied to the existing scheme. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment repeated it in even more definite terms, that the intention of the Amendment was that there should be a further investigation into this scheme. I asked whether that did not mean that everything would stop except work under what was called a care and maintenance basis—everything would stop until there had been a further investigation. It was the Opposition, who moved the Amendment, who put upon it the interpretation to which I have replied.

5.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has said that two or three times, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), pointed out, it would not mean that everything would stop. No one thinks for one


moment that it would, least of all the right hon. Gentleman. The point is whether or not this Clause applies immediately to any further investigation. Our reading of the Bill is confirmed by that of two of my hon. and learned Friends, who have stated that if the Bill is passed in its present form there must be an investigation.
I am not a lawyer, but I am quite prepared to take their advice on this matter because, for once in a way, legal advice marches with what appears to be the meaning of the words. I know that sometimes it does not, but on this occasion it does. The Bill says,
The Overseas Food Corporation shall be charged with the duty of securing the investigation.
If that does not mean that they have to have an investigation, it does not mean anything at all.
My hon. and learned Friends have pointed out that the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman adduces is one of continuation because these words are lifted from a previous Act. That does not make any difference because after 1st April, owing to the way in which this Clause is drafted and owing to the words in the original Act, it will be left mandatory on the Corporation to have an investigation.
Until the Law Officers of the Crown can tell us that that is wrong, I am quite prepared to accept the view of my hon. and learned Friends. I know that lawyers can differ on these matters, but that is also the commonsense reading of the Clause. We know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want an investigation because he has said so several times. He has said that he has already had one. The words of the Clause say that even if he has had hundreds he will still have to have another. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is what I am advised, and no lawyer has contradicted it yet. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's legal friends will contradict it.
As we understand it, there will have to be another investigation. The right hon. Gentleman does not want another investigation at the moment and, from his point of view I do not blame him; he has just had one which satisfies him.

But if he does not want another investigation then I beg him to have another look at this point between now and the time when the Bill gets to the Statute Book.
We have had no doubts that we should like another investigation, but we were defeated in that submission on the two occasions upon which we fought it—on Second Reading and on the new Clause. We should still like to have an investigation, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have one I beg him to have another look at the Clause and to make quite certain that he is not going to get one, because we are advised that these words mean that he is going to get one. If he is, and if he cannot help himself because of the wording of the Bill, let it be an investigation of the kind for which we ask in this very narrow Amendment—by outside people and not by members of the Board or their employees.
Until the legal advice to the Front Bench is known, I do not know that we can carry the matter very much further. The right hon. Gentleman has been told what is the effect of the Clause by two of my hon. and learned Friends who are here to help us with legal advice. The right hon. Gentleman and myself are not lawyers, but my hon. and learned Friends are here and they have tendered their advice.

Mr. Hoy: And they have not been paid for it.

Captain Crookshank: I agree; on this occasion they have not been paid for it. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should not discuss the matter any further now because we cannot reach a conclusion until we have had advice contradicting what my hon. and learned Friends said, and there is no one opposite capable of giving it to us. I am not satisfied that it can be contradicted. We do not want to spend much longer on this point. Obviously, it would be impossible for us to move manuscript Amendments to take out these words because we are on the Report stage, when the Chair does not normally accept manuscript Amendments.

Mr. Ellis Smith: How many speeches have been made from the two Front Benches?

Captain Crookshank: What has that to do with it? Speeches have been made from this Front Bench to try to elucidate the matter and we have now reached the point, if I may so put it—aptly, I think, on this occasion—in a groundnut shell, that there is a difference of opinion between lay Ministers on the Front Bench and hon. and learned Gentlemen on this side as to what is the effect of these words in the Clause.
We do not want to prolong the discussion on this Amendment, because we want to get on to the next Amendment, and I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should, between now and the final stages of the Bill, take this matter into consideration to see if these words do compel him to have an investigation, and, if he does not want an investigation, to make an Amendment to the Clause to make it clear that he does not want to have an investigation; or if he is so enamoured of these words because they are lifted from the Act of 1948 and have, therefore, a certain hoary look about them, then let him see that any investigation, whenever it takes place, whether immediately after the passage of the Bill or a year after—and any such investigations in the future—shall be carried out by impartial persons on the lines we have suggested in our Amendment. If he will do that, then, perhaps, we can pass to the next Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will he?"] I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to say something.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I listened to what hon. and learned Members opposite said, and my legal advisers have given me their view. I will look at the point again, but on the general question I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(5) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for ascertaining, verifying and recording particulars (whether relating to subject matter. value, ownership or other matters) of the assets, property, rights and liabilities of the Overseas Food Corporation as on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
This Amendment seeks to make it mandatory on the Secretary of State to make regulations for ascertaining, verifying and recording particulars of the assets.

property, rights and liabilities of the Overseas Food Corporation on the date when the Secretary of State becomes responsible for this enterprise. We had quite a lengthy discussion on an earlier occasion on the need to have an objective appreciation of the exact position in which the Corporation finds itself, and we made it quite plain to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it did appear to us to be enormously to the advantage of the Corporation that it should know exactly where it stood in regard to all its assets, obligations and liabilities. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere, as I do not doubt he is, in his hope that this new venture will succeed—and if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament we join with him in wishing success to the enter prise—he will recognise that it is very much to the advantage of the Overseas Food Corporation to know exactly where it stands.
We have heard a good deal from uninformed quarters about the large volume of assets in East Africa, and many speeches have been made on that subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), for example, on Second Reading said:
The £36,500,000"—
we are now engaged in writing off—
represents, in great part, solid assets which are now established in East Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484. c. 1158.]
We do not believe that that is so, but we are prepared to give the Government and the Corporation the benefit of the doubt. If there are these solid assets then we should be interested to know what and where they are, and we think it reasonable to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for ascertaining, verifying and recording particulars of those assets, and, incidentally, also of all the various liabilities.
There is one aspect of this problem of ascertaining the assets to which I should like in particular to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody knows that there are large quantities of very valuable stores in East Africa. Many stores deteriorate very fast in East Africa, and we want to have a clear appreciation of the volume of these stores and of their value to British taxpayers. We are anxious to know how much can be rescued, and how much of the £36,500,000 we are


writing off today can be recovered to the benefit of British taxpayers, and I should be grateful if, in the discussion tonight, the right hon. Gentleman could cause inquiry to be made in regard to two particular aspects of the stores position in East Africa.
We have been at some considerable pains to obtain accurate information of the situation in regard to these two groups of commodities some time last year, but we have not more recent information, and if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us it would help us, I think, in our proper discussion of this Clause. So far as we can make out, any regulation made by the right hon. Gentleman for ascertaining the assets in East Africa would disclose the fact that at Urambo alone, when the last census was taken, there was no less than seven years' supply of gear oil stored, and at Kongwa for two and a half years' supplies of gear oil alone. I should be interested to know whether that is so, and if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether he will bring that figure further up to date.
Then there is another aspect of the situation to which I think the attention of the House should be directed. Any regulations made under this Amendment will disclose, in East Africa, the most fantastic situation in regard to the vast purchases of liquor by the Corporation. We have had inquiries made, and we are anxious to know what the situation is today. How much is now held? How much has been disposed of? What is the likely value to the public? Last year alone no fewer than 3,783 bottles of sherry were offered for sale in East Africa; 1,489 bottles of liqueurs; 7,686 bottles of brandy; 4,759 bottles of gin; 4,140 bottles or rum: 40,000 bottles of Tennant's beer; and 64,508 bottles of "Revolver" ale—brewed to keep only three months and which, when offered for sale, had already been in store for 12 months. Any regulations made to inquire into the assets of the Corporation would, I think, be of very great interest to British taxpayers who have to pay for monstrous purchases of that kind.
When one remembers that there are traders in all these commodities who could have supplied the Corporation's needs out of stock, the scandal becomes even graver. Having given the House the benefit of the long list of commodities

available—the alcoholic liquor available—one is a little surprised to remember, in view of the advertisements for this commodity, that they were satisfied with only 1,259 bottles of Rose's lime juice! As I said, the existing traders in East Africa could have supplied everything, and when they approached the Corporation they were told the Corporation proposed to buy in bulk and thereby effect a great saving to the taxpayers.
Last year alone that vast quantity of liquor was put on the market. We have no information as to how it was sold, or what price was reached, but in view of the large quantity of stores already there, and of the very large cost, and in view of the very limited public allowed to buy this liquor in East Africa, it does seem that these bottles must have been sold at a very heavy discount. That being so, an inquiry made by regulation under this Amendment would, I think, disclose some astonishing facts to the British taxpayer. I hope that this discussion tonight will last long enough to enable the right hon. Gentleman to check up on the present situation.
5.30 p.m.
I mentioned liabilities apart from assets, and we are anxious to know some definite details about the liabilities of the Corporation. The House will remember that on.the Committee stage we had a great deal of contrary advice tendered by various right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We did not know whether the loss that we were told about was the loss on the sale of stores or the cost of the sale of stores, and either the Secretary of State or the Minister of Food undertook to make a statement today on this question. We are anxiously awaiting further information about the anticipated loss on the sale of stores or the cost of the sale of stores, because it matters very much to the House in arriving at a sensible conclusion.
There is one aspect of the liabilities of the Corporation to which I would like once more to direct the attention of the House. One of the liabilities of the Corporation will, no doubt, be to pay proper compensation to officers who are displaced. We heard two days ago of the very small compensation which is being paid to a large number of people who are losing their jobs, and then just as the Committee was rising we heard a


rather astonishing story of a very substantial payment that is being made to a retiring member of the Corporation—Mr. McFadyen.
I have no complaint to make of Mr. McFadyen. He no doubt made a very worth while contract from his own point of view, and it is undeniable that he has given good service to the Corporation during his years of office, but it appears to us to be extraordinary that, having drawn an annual salary of £4,000 a year, which he continued to receive when he ceased to be vice-chairman, he now is to receive compensation of £4,000 down and £600 a year pension for life. The pension for life, I understand, is roughly what he would have received in seven years time from the Co-operative Wholesale Society. What appears to be happening is that the British taxpayer is now taking over what should be the obligation of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I hope that whoever is to reply can give us more information about that issue.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think I need add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). We feel that there should be a complete financial break between the old and the new—that we should regard the past as representing a bankrupt concern and that there should follow the ordinary procedure which occurs when a man or a company goes bankrupt. One thing is quite certain. Where any firm goes bankrupt the old firm is certainly not allowed to carry out its own valuation of the remaining assets; certainly, when the directorate remains very largely the same, the directorate of the new concern should not be allowed to take over those assets again at their own valuation. I cannot see why any public corporation should claim to exempt itself from the normal procedure of bankruptcy, and I do not think that hon. Members opposite should try to apply any different method in the case of this Groundnut Scheme.
I hope that we shall receive support from all quarters of the House. All we want to do is to satisfy ourselves that there are no hidden assets and no unreasonable liabilities. The House and the country are entitled to a full and frank

statement of the present value of the assets remaining. They certainly are entitled to know what are the liabilities of the new Corporation, certainly with regard to pensions. There is no doubt that the senior members of the Corporation are receiving up to 19 months' salary as gratuity, whereas humble people here in London are getting only four or five weeks' salary. That has caused a very bad impression throughout the country, and I hope it has created a bad impression on the other side of the House.
We must insist that this business shall be properly dealt with and that the assets shall be properly valued. We have got to clear up the misunderstandings, which have arisen from the statement which was made the other night, about the way in which these assets are to be valued. We had an extraordinary statement from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs the ether night. He seems to have mixed up the functions of an auditor and a valuer. The auditor does not value the assets. He either accepts the valuation put upon them by the concern or else he demands an independent valuation. As the receivers in bankruptcy, as the custodians of public funds and as the body who are asked, incidentally, to vote another £6 million, we should at least insist upon the Government being as businesslike as they and their supporters would certainly demand of a private concern.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): Perhaps it might be convenient if I intervened at this stage. Let me first deal with one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I cannot answer offhand his question dealing with the 2½years' supply of gear oil at Kongwa or the seven years' supply at Urambo, but I will certainly see that the necessary information is available. A large part of the hon. Member's speech, which I thought was going to deal with fixed assets, appeared to be entirely confined to liquid assets. It sounded almost like an inventory of the Carlton Club. It was a very curious list, and all I hope is that a very large amount of that liquor will have found its way, at the right and suitable price, into the hands of people who fully appreciate it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is altogether


adequate to dismiss in that frivolous way the purchase of stores on such a vast and fantastic scale at a time when we are counting every penny for our national survival, and to regard the whole matter as one that can be turned off as a rather flippant joke?

Mr. Dugdale: No. I am only interested in the fact that this liquor appears to have been the thing which has most exercised the mind of the hon. Member.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is most scandalous.

Mr. Dugdale: It is not scandalous unless it is proved that that liquor has been sold at a vastly reduced price, and there is no information that it has been. If it has been sold at a reasonable price no loss will have been incurred.
I should like to turn to the main question of valuation. Three points arise here. The first is the ascertainment of the physical existence and location of the buildings, installations, plant, machinery, vehicles and furniture; the second is the maintenance of detailed records of these assets; and the third is the question of the valuation itself. The existence of the assets, which appear in the Corporation's accounts for 31st March, 1950, were substantiated by detailed physical censuses carried out for that purpose by the Corporation. A further complete census of plant, machinery and vehicles, and a test census of buildings and installations are now being carried out in East Africa as a further check of the Corporation's detailed records from which figures will appear in the accounts for 31st March, 1951.
As to the records, it can fairly be claimed that the detailed records of buildings, installations and plant now maintained in East Africa conform to the best commercial practice, and the Corporation is at present completing an inventory of furniture and office equipment which form a small proportion of those fixed assets.
The auditors have taken the view that it is one of their functions to satisfy themselves, by whatever test they consider necessary, that proper detailed records of fixed assets are, in fact, kept, that there is a satisfactory system in force for recording the existence and location of those assets and that such a system is functioning properly. As regards ascer-

tainment and recording, I am satisfied—and, what I think is of greater importance, the auditors are satisfied—that nothing further is required.
There remains the question of the fixed assets. Here, I think we are in general agreement with the Opposition that we want to be absolutely certain that we have the correct valuation of these assets which we are taking over. The position is that the buildings, installations, plant, machinery, and vehicles appear on the Corporation's accounts at cost or, where it has not been possible to ascertain the cost, at the estimated cost less accumulated depreciation. Some of these assets will be required by the Corporation to carry on the scheme in its new form, while others will become surplus to requirements. The Corporation are at present engaged in determining into which of these two categories the assets will fall.

Mr. Gammans: If, as the right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting, these fixed assets and movable assets are worth a considerable sum of money, why is it that the Government have written off the whole cost of £36½ million? Ought they not to have had a proper valuation before they came to this House and asked us to wipe off every penny piece that they have spent up to now?

Mr. Dugdale: It has always been made clear that any moneys which are found as a result of the valuation will be taken into account, and will, in fact, be paid back into the Exchequer. Therefore, they will obviously be set against the losses amounting at present to £36 million. That is why I think it is important to make this clear. I am very glad that the hon. Member raised it, because the loss of £36 million is not a net loss, but £36 million less these assets which is a very important point to bring home. We shall discover later on how much, in fact. the loss is when we are able to subtract the various assets that are left from £36 million.
As I have said, the Corporation are engaged in determining into which of these categories the various fixed assets will fall and it is clear that when that determination is complete, which should be the last quarter of this year, no other basis of valuation will be possible. Even then it is difficult to see how it will be possible to value in any other way the other surplus assets until their realisable value has been decided by disposal, or the


retained assets until the economic possibilities of the undertaking has been decided by experimentation carried out under the new plan for the scheme.
I am very doubtful whether any verification or valuation is, in fact, a practical possibility, but we intend to test these doubts on this point by seeking the views of a reputable firm of valuers. I am prepared to undertake that if it can be found that an independent valuation is practicable, once the surplus assets have been segregated from those to be retained, then we will arrange for such an independent valuation to be carried out. I think that this, in general, meets the point raised by hon. Members opposite. I hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) will feel that this satisfies him, and that his hon. Friend will be able to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that we shall consult such a firm of valuers and we shall then see what the position is in the light of the advice which we shall get from such a firm as I have mentioned.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Despite the assurance given by the Minister of State, I do not feel at all happy about the situation, because if there is to be a valuation of this Corporation, which is now in liquidation, it should be done by an entirely independent body. We should like to know who this independent body is to be, because the assets will vary a great deal in character. Unless the valuers are prepared to employ experts in the various branches of valuation, I should feel very unhappy about it, certainly if the valuation were undertaken by valuers who did not understand agricultural machinery.

Mr. Dugdale: It would be the desire of the Government, as it obviously is of the Opposition, that we should secure the best and most competent firm of valuers. We do not intend to employ just any valuers we can pick up anywhere, but the best valuers we can secure, because it is in our interests as well as in the interests of the nation that the valuers should be of the best.

5.45 p.m.

Sir P. Macdonald: I hope that the valuers will draw on the experience and expert knowledge of people outside their

own firm. I have seen a great deal of vehicle disposal by the Government and a great deal of public money lost through improper handling of the valuation and the sale. For instance, I went to Germany as a member of a Select Committee of the House to report on the activities of the Control Commission. There, we found thousands of vehicles for disposal, but they had been allowed to lie and rot in the sun and in the weather for years without being disposed of. Some of them, we were told, were not disposed of because they lacked spare parts, and nobody wanted to buy a vehicle which was not complete.
I learned about this Corporation that 90 per cent. of its vehicles and equipment were out of order at one time owing to the spare parts not being available. They were sent to one port whilst the vehicles and equipment went to another. Today, probably a great deal of the equipment which would have to be disposed of, as the new Corporation would not require it for the smaller scheme, is lying in the open air, exposed to the African sun, while awaiting disposal. I do not want to see things happen there which, I am told, have already happened in some cases—equipment being sold to squatters and Indians without sufficient notice being given to other people in Africa that a sale was taking place. I am told of these things being sold at knock-down prices to Indians, who, overnight, added a few spare parts and re-sold them at an enormous profit. That is another thing that must be watched very carefully.
There is room for disposal of this equipment in Africa. Other Colonies may want it. I am told that the Tanganyika Government would probably require a good deal of it, and I hope they will find a use for it. Other Governments in Africa should have an opportunity of purchasing this equipment. What I am afraid of is the selling of this equipment in job lots to people without proper notice being given to the public generally. In that way the taxpayers lose more money, and we have already lost a pile on this scheme.
There is the question of unserviceable vehicles. These vehicles should not be sold at knock-down prices. It should be possible to make them serviceable by using spares taken from other broken down vehicles so as to build them up into


serviceable ones. That was done eventually in Germany, and hundreds of thousands of pounds were saved to the British taxpayer. I am afraid, however, that many of these vehicles will be sold off as unserviceable and unusable at any price which they will bring, when, possibly, a little attention to them could make them serviceable. Some of this equipment was bought at a very high price, indeed far too high a price at the time. It was transported from the Pacific Ocean at tremendous freight charges and it was allowed to lie on piers and wharfs in Africa for months at a time. Some of the cost was for demurrage because the ships could not get into port.
All that is known is that this is some of the most expensive equipment which was ever purchased by any Government. Therefore, it is vital to try to dispose of it to the best possible advantage. The assurance from the Minister of State that he is to employ the best possible valuers is one which we accept. Later we would like to know who the valuers are and if they are to bring in the best possible advice and experience from outside to see that this enormous amount of equipment is disposed of to the best means. With that assurance from the Minister, I am prepared to accept his statement.

Mr. Frederic Harris: There is one point which the Minister of State made with regard to the sale of liquor and which I should like to get clear. He said that surely there could be no complaint if such supplies of liquor were sold at a profit. Two points arise out of that. First, when and how are we to know that this liquor is sold at a profit or a loss unless we can get absolute details? Secondly, that does not excuse those running the Scheme for all the enormous buying of liquor that there was. The Government and the Overseas Food Corporation are not buyers of liquor, and therefore, there is no justification for that from a trading point of view.
The point put forward by hon. Members on this side is that we are completely dissatisfied with this Scheme from the accountancy point of view. I welcome the assurance which the Minister has given with regard to the employment of a valuer in respect of the fixed assets, but I would remind him that in his speech he has dealt only with the question of the fixed assets. He has missed all the

other points and brought in only the fixed assets. The Amendment refers to assets, property, rights and liabilities, and although the fixed assets are very important so far as they remain, we on this side are deeply worried about all the possessions belonging to the Overseas Food Corporation and what is to happen to them, particularly if there is not a proper system of accountancy and a proper record right from the start of the new Scheme on 1st April.
The Minister put the valuation of the fixed assets into two categories, the fixed assets which are to be used under the new Scheme and those that are not, and which will be disposed of. He went on to say that the recording of the sales of the fixed assets would not come into these accounts, but would apparently be paid into the Exchequer as a kind of extra payment. Surely that is a peculiar way to go on, because there is the intention to sell surplus stores and equipment, to receive payment for it and to put it into the accounts of the new Scheme. Why should the disposal of fixed assets be paid separately into the Exchequer?
I find great difficulty in understanding this, in view of the fact that the new Scheme starts on 1st April. Surely the correct way is to take the sale of the assets, whether fixed or otherwise, record it correctly on the balance sheet of the new Scheme, and then let the Corporation under its new Scheme go ahead with their disposal, supported in the case of the fixed asets by a valuation by an independent body, which will be an assurance to everyone that this is in order, and, as the capital is realised, to show it distinctly on subsequent accounts as a write-down of the commencing capital.
We then come to the question of stocks, to which the Minister of State hardly referred, and about which my colleagues and I feel very strongly. He will remember the statement made the other night that on the liquidation of such stores, if the Scheme were closed, there would be a loss of some £600,000. Under the accounts which are proposed, and which by this Amendment we want to see accurately set out, the suggestion is that we should get in due course some £2¼ million on the sale of surplus stores and equipment. Does that mean that we are going to commence with some £4 million worth of


stores and equipment from 1st April which in actual fact will be redundant to the Scheme and which, on realisation, will cost £1,600,000, and that the remaining £2¼ million will then go into the Scheme? That is, I presume, the way in which these figures have been set down. That is why we are deeply concerned and want an accurate start on 1st April, because many of us believe there is very much more than he £4 million worth of stores which are to be realised. Over and above that, we do not believe that, particularly in a time of rising prices, there can be a loss of £1,600,000 on the sale and realisation of such commencing stores, whether they be £4 million or not.
Therefore, the importance behind the proposal in the Amendment is this. We want to start with accurate information on 1st April. We have the Minister's statement that, so far as the fixed assets are concerned, an independent valuer will be employed and that we shall start afresh. That is all right, but I do not know how it is to be done in the time. Furthermore, there is one section that is not to go into the Scheme, and some of the money is not to go into the balance-sheet whatever happens but is to be paid separately into the Exchequer. That means that this House cannot possibly know what will be going on subsequent to 1st April, even as to the realisation of the fixed assets.
When it comes to the question of stores, unless this proposal is amended—and the Minister of State said nothing about the valuation of stocks and stores at all, but talked only about the fixed assets—I, and I think many of my hon. Friends, would not be prepared to accept a general stock figure which might be put in. In fact, the Minister of State himself sounded as if he were not quite sure whether there was a proper accountancy system to record the stocks and stores over there at the present time.
Furthermore, there may be a considerable degree of doubt about what we are starting with, in regard to stores. Obviously, if we write off £36½ million there must be a considerable amount of stores and equipment which must still be there. It may well be that they are of a much larger monetary value than £4 million, but, even so, I cannot accept the thought that even if that were the right figure, we should lose £1,600,000 in the

disposal of them. We need accurate information in the accounts to start on-1st April, otherwise the subsequent information that will be put before the House will not be a true reflection of the handling of the Scheme from 1st April. It will involve considerable loss on the disposal of stocks which would never have been employed on the Scheme. The profits that should be obtained on the disposal of the stores and stocks should commence accurately in this new balance sheet from 1st April. This is a vital point. I believe that the Ministers concerned are not keen to continue pursuing this matter but I cannot understand why, because it is important to know where we start.
6.0 p.m.
There is no party issue involved. The whole point is that we do not want to be faced in a year and a half with some possible misunderstanding of what has occurred since 1st April this year. It is vital that we should have a proper reflection of the trading from 1st April, but without the accurate information envisaged in the Amendment we cannot possibly learn what has taken place in the trading since 1st April. If these figures are to mean anything, they should be enlarged upon by ensuring that we get independent valuers not only for the fixed assets, to which the Minister referred, but also for the stocks and equipment. The whole of the assets should be valued and we should commence at 1st April with detailed advice on that valuation so that we can see what occurs on the realisation of the assets.
I know that many hon. Members opposite do not like this Scheme being delved into, but I, for one, will not accept everything that is put across to me. The Minister of State said just now that we were only talking about liquor. He has been to East Africa, and anybody of intelligence could see for himself what is out there and what has got to be disposed of. Hon. Members opposite should join with us in recognising the need for accurate information. Why should not we have it? Just because this is a public scheme, why should the Government play about like this? I strongly support the purpose of this Amendment, that from 1st April we should start with accurate information of all the stocks so that we know what is happening. That would be


a safeguard against any possible abuse in East Africa in disposing of the assets, stocks and stores.
I ask the Ministers concerned to realise the importance of starting with this type of information. They have gone part of the way by saying there will be a valuation of the fixed assets. Let them go the whole way so that we have an independent viewpoint of the value of the stocks and stores when we start on 1st April.

Mr. Webb: In Committee I undertook to try to give some additional explanation of certain figures, and after the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris) perhaps it would be relevant for me to intervene now to try to elucidate those figures. Many of the figures have appeared in printed form and some have been used in the wrong context. For instance, the £2¼million which has been cited was a figure in an Appendix of the White Paper on which the Corporation based its recommendations to the Government, but the Scheme we have now adopted, and which the House has endorsed, is not the Corporation Scheme. That is just one example of a figure taken out of its context and used rather falsely and misleadingly.
I hope I shall be in order in trying to give, as briefly as I can, some explanation of the rather complicated figures we have been looking at. Confusion has arisen, I think, not so much from any lack of information as from the fact that the comparisons are complicated, and I sympathise with hon. Members. It is difficult enough to do this sort of exercise when sitting at a desk, and it is certainly a most confusing business to have to do it in the House. Since our last discussion I have had some estimates from the Corporation; I have gone into them very fully with the Chairman and other officers, and as a result I hope that I shall be able to amplify the matter a little, and at least give some up-to-date facts.
Let me first make one point quite clear. Confusion has arisen, I think, from this. We are not writing off assets. What we are writing off is the Corporation's debt to the Exchequer in respect of advances made out of the Consolidated Fund. The value of the Corporation's assets—to which I will come later—is really unaffected by this write-off. What the

Corporation possesses does not somehow disappear because the debt is to be written off. We are not closing down the Corporation; we are reducing its scale of operations. Much of the discussion has taken place on the assumption that we were in liquidation, and on that assumption a good many of the points made would have been relevant and real. In fact, we are not going into liquidation. The Corporation continues. What we are doing is reducing its scale of operations, re-shaping it and bringing the whole thing down much nearer to a basis of financial and economic reality. The Corporation continues, and we must have that in mind.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North has much wider business experience than I have, but I believe it is fairly normal commercial practice, when a big organisation is restricting its activities although not going into liquidation, to do something of this kind, to make certain assumptions about the value of its assets and write them down to a certain book value and yet not proceed on the basis upon which they would proceed if the concern were going into liquidation.

Mr. Harris: When anybody writes down £36½ million representing advances from the Exchequer, he has to write down the equivalent on the other side of the balance sheet as well. If the whole amount advanced is £36½ million, involving the total expenditure to date, it virtually means that the whole assets as such are being written off, unless something is brought back instead, and if so, we should not have written off that amount of the loan.

Mr. Webb: I see that, and it is quite a proper comment. I am trying to give the Corporation's assessment of that requirement, and I hope it will emerge in the course of my remarks.
We begin with the situation in which the Corporation have certain assets in East Africa. In their balance sheet for the year ended 31st March, 1950, they gave the value of their assets at that date. No later audited figure—and the difficulty is that there is no audited figure; I do not want to mislead the House; we have to wait for the audited figure—will be available until the 1951 accounts are completed, but to help the House I can give the Corporation's estimates. The book value of the main estimates at the


end of March, 1951, this month, are estimated—and please bear in mind this is the estimate without the auditors' approval—to be roughly as follows: buildings and installations, £3 million; plant, machinery, vehicles and stores, £7½million. In addition there is this asset: the expenditure recoverable from the East African railways, assuming we go on—and I think the House realises that we have to go on to recover that asset—£3 million.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The money advanced to the East African railways and harbours did not form part of the £36½ million, so if the impression is being given that that is a further sum to offset against the £36½ million, that would not be correct.

Mr. Webb: I did not mean to give that impression. I merely wanted to get it on the record. It is not part of the £36½ million, but it is part of the picture. As they did in the 1949–50 accounts, the Corporation will state in the notes on their accounts the basis upon which their assets appear in the accounts, so there will be no secrecy and uncertainty upon this point. Although we have to work in advance of the appearance of these accounts, I can say that the basis is the cost or, where that is not available, the estimated cost of the assets less depreciation, which I think is a normal and fair test. Hon. Members will realise that this is the book value. On the whole, it is the only figure on which we can work pending the arrival of the accounts.
I come to the value of the cleared land, which is an entirely separate estimate. It is not shown separately in the balance sheet for the reasons which were stated in paragraph 397 of the Report to which I have referred. That was because the cost of clearing the land could not be separated from the cost of the general development. Our trouble is that cleared land is rather an imponderable asset. If we do not go on with the Scheme, the bush will come back and that will be the end of the asset. If we go on and succeed, that land will appreciate in value. At the moment it does not exist as an asset at all, and we must not consider it as such, but we must take it into account in our appreciation.
Under the new Scheme of the White Paper, the assets which are mainly plant, machinery and stores, have a book value of up to £3 million surplus to the Corporation's future requirements. It is virtually impossible to give a satisfactory estimate of the sum which will be realised by the sale of those surplus assets. As hon. Members have pointed out, world prices are rising, but much of this equipment is unfortunately of a specialised character for which there is only a limited market. I wish it were not so. The Corporation will have to meet heavy charges in respect of maintenance and transport. Whatever net sums are recoverable after the operations will be paid into the Exchequer and can be, and will be, set against the advances from the Consolidated Fund which are being written off. That is the picture at that stage. Now I come to the cost of the new plant. which gives some difficulty.

Mr. F. Harris: I thank the Minister very much for trying to make the position clear. What puzzles me is this figure of £10½ million for assets not appearing on the accounts. We shall know later whether it is £10½ million or more. I do not understand why the Government wrote off £36½ million. Why did they not write off everything except the £10½ million, which would have meant a net write off of £26½ million?

Mr. Webb: We felt that this was the honest thing to do. The Government wrote off £36½ million because the Corporation in its last Report made it clear that it could no longer carry out its statutory obligations. It seemed the proper thing to do to write off the whole amount and to assume that whatever came along would be to our advantage. It might have made the picture look better if we had done what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
The estimate of £6 million in the White Paper is the net sum which the Corporation expect to draw from the Treasury over a period of about seven years, up to September, 1957. This net sum represents a gross figure of £13½ million, less the estimated income of about £7½ million from crops over that period. The gross estimate of £13½ million is made up of about £2¼ million capital expenditure, after allowing for the use of stores and equipment, about £8½ million expended on


agriculture, and about £2¾ million expended upon past commitments, such as the guarantee to the Southern Province Railway, compensation for loss of office to staff who will not be needed, and general run-down and maintenance expenses on the surplus fixed assets. That is a rough estimate of the break-down of the figures on which the new plan is based. It is £13½ million, less possible sales of £7½million, leaving us roughly with £6 million, which appears in the White Paper.
6.15 p.m.
Of the net sum of £6 million, there are £2¾million in respect of past commitments. The remaining £3¼million is for expenditure in the future. That is the real figure on which we should focus our minds. The figure of £6 million is only an estimate, but I do not want to overlook the fact that we are not entering into the Scheme on the assumption that £6 million is an accurate figure. I admit that there might be a wide margin of error in it. The House's protection is that each annual instalment will have to be presented to the House. It will go on to the Vote of the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, in the ordinary way. I hope that explanation is all right.
Now let me turn to the academic problem of closing the Scheme down at once. We must consider the assets. Instead of getting rid of the surplus assets with a book value of £3 million, the Corporation assumes that the book value of the disposal of machinery, stores and so on would, in the case of complete closure, be about £7½million. Again, it is impossible to state what sums might be realised by the sale of those assets. It must be remembered that buildings and installations will have very little value for disposal, although they would be surplus. Whatever sums were recoverable would be paid into the Exchequer and would be set against advances from the Consolidated Fund which we have written off. They would yield more than in the case of disposal under the modified plan. It must be realised that in the case of the modified plan the Corporation retains assets which would be of potential enhancing value.
The Corporation would have to find a little more than £1 million as compensation to various interests, for breach of contract in respect of transportation in

the Southern Province, and other major contracts with suppliers would add another £300,000. Under the general heading of personnel, there would be the cost of the termination of contracts, salaries to people while awaiting passage to the United Kingdom, and the cost of passages to the United Kingdom. Those work out at £1,650,000. Then there would be miscellaneous commitments in regard to dispersal of African labour and the breaking of other contracts, which would cost half a million pounds. In the statement made recently by the Parliamentary Secretary, he gave a figure of £1½million which included this figure of half a million pounds in the cost of maintenance and dispersal of the surplus assets. Excluding this, the cost of concentration, maintenance and disposal of surplus assets is estimated at £1 million and not the gross figure of £1½ million.
Hon. Members opposite may challenge this estimate of the cost of disposal. I agree that the figure is very high indeed. I have discussed this matter in great detail with the responsible officers of the Corporation, and I am satisfied that their judgment is sound. It is based on the assumption that the surplus assets were collected and moved at heavy cost and have to be sold on a business basis. That is the figure they are putting on to the calculation, and I am pretty sure that it will turn out to be more than adequate. They thought it better to put it at a high figure rather than to run the risk of being inaccurate. The cost of closing down is £4½ million. In addition, the Corporation and the Exchequer would not be able to recover from the East African Railways the £3 million loaned to the Southern Province Railway.

Mr. Hurd: Why not.

Mr. Webb: Because we have failed to complete the contract and we are obliged to lose on it. We did not carry out our obligations under the contract. The figure I have given is £4½ million, plus £3 million, making the cost of closing down £7½million. That is how we arrived at the two figures which have caused so much discussion in previous debates.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman has already stated this, but what was the Corporation's estimate of the yield of the assets which will cost £1 million to dispose of?

Mr. Webb: I think that is covered by one of the general figures which I have given, but I am not quite clear about it and cannot say offhand. We have all got confused about this in previous debates and have been bringing out figures which have no relevance. I am trying to get the picture clear. It really is clear if we can get it sorted out. I do not want to give a snap judgment about a figure which may be irrelevant to what I am trying to set out.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the cost of closing down the Scheme. He has given the gross figure for all the items. We cannot appreciate the problem until we know the net figure; that is, what he will get for the assets of which he will dispose.

Mr. Webb: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that we should separate the surplus assets? I have given the figure of the surplus assets which we expect to get rid of—about £3 million—so that the figure of £1 million should really be set against the figure £3 million. Are we right about that?

Mr. F. Harris: No.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman gave the figure of £3 million in relation to the new Scheme.

Mr. Webb: I am talking about surplus assets.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, in relation to the new Scheme.

Mr. Webb: We are proceeding on the assumption that with the new Scheme we shall have surplus assets which we require to dispose of.

Mr. Hoy: Are we in Committee?

Mr. Webb: I want to give one other fact in order to give all the information to the House. I apologise for the length of my statement. This other matter relates to Mr. McFadyen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is concerned with Mr. McFadyen's future, but what I have to say relates to an obligation of the past. There is some misunderstanding about his pension. Mr. McFadyen's pension is based on payments he himself has made. When he joined the Corporation he had

certain pension rights with the organisation for which he then worked—I believe it was the C.W.S.—and at that time he did not want to lose those pension rights, and we agreed with the Chancellor to transfer them to the Corporation. Since then he himself has continued all the contributory payments which had to be made, and only a very small part of the pension now due to him is based on payments made out of public money. Therefore, for the larger part, the actuarial value of the pension is the result of payments made by him in his own sphere of life over many years long before he entered the Corporation. The actual figure of compensation, £4,000, is not more than that normally paid at the end of contracts of this kind. In some cases it might be less, but it is certainly not more—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be going into a great deal of detail. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out some undertaking that he has given, but the Amendment has to do with the making of regulations giving various particulars of assets, property rights and liabilities of the Corporation, and I do not want the debate to develop into one as to the correctness or otherwise of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is, I gather, as a matter of courtesy carrying out an undertaking he has given to the House, but the question before us is one of mechanics and not of details of figures.

Mr. Webb: I thought that was the desire of everybody. The matter was raised and questions were put, and, since questions were put, I felt it would be wrong not to give some more information. If I have gone too wide, I can only apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Might I strain your indulgence for a moment to make clear one more fact—the amount of time that Mr. McFadyen still had to run? His contract was for six years, and he had done just over three years. He had about two years and nine months to go. That is all the information I can give on the point, and I hope that I have been able to help the House arrive at a clearer judgment.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned £1,500,000 as


compensation and also mentioned passages home for people who are being retired from the Scheme. Did he mention the number of people concerned?

Mr. Webb: I did not. I doubt whether we could give the figure at the moment. I believe that the actual number of people who will be redundant cannot at present be assessed. If it would help, I can find out and the information can be given in another place.

Sir R. Glyn: If the right hon. Gentleman mentioned £1,500,000 as compensation, that must be based on the number of people affected.

Mr. Webb: In arriving at the estimates, the officers of the Corporation have, of course, to make certain assumptions and calculations. They have certain global figures in their minds. But I could not say whether or not the number of people who will be redundant will approximate to the figure which they have in mind. This is a round figure which they have given to us as the one on which we can proceed to work.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am afraid that I am completely dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer. Everything he has said—I appreciate his courtesy in trying to give full particulars—has confirmed my view that the Amendment is one which the House should accept. It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is very necessary in the public interest that the most precise methods of evaluating the assets and liabilities should be used. I will deal first with the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave for the new Scheme. If I understood him correctly, the figure for the assets is £10,500,000, £3 million worth of which he will dispose of. Am I right so far?

Mr. Webb: Mr. Webb indicated assent.

Mr. Lloyd: That leaves £7,500,000 worth of assets with which the new corporation will start. It will thus have the benefit of the £7,500,000 worth of assets. One ought to know how much those assets are worth. How much are they worth to the new Corporation? Are they worth £7,500,000 to the new Corporation or are they worth less? If they are worth £2 million to the new Corpora-

tion the figure of the amount to be written off should not be £36 million.
In dealing with the figure of loss to be written off, it is wrong to disregard the net value of the remaining assets to the new Corporation. If it is not clearly understood on what basis the new Corporation is starting, we shall never be able to decide whether it is a worthwhile proposition or not. It seems to me to be very necessary for the Minister to make regulations to determine the value of the £7,500,000 worth of assets which now appear to be given to the new Corporation as a present. The new Corporation will apparently start with all the advances written off and with £7,500,000 worth of assets in hand. That is a very agreeable state of affairs, but we ought to know the exact figures. Then the Minister says that he will dispose of £3 million worth of assets. I believe that the estimate of what he would get for that is very much lower, but, in order to avoid accusations of a public scandal of one sort or another. it seems that much more precise methods should be used to determine the value of the assets and to see whether the realisation is properly achieved.
I should like once more to try to get from the Minister the figure about which I interrupted him. He has told us the cost of winding up the Scheme, the four items amounting to £4,500,000, plus £3 million in respect of railways. He has not brought into account at all any yield from the £10,500,000 worth of assets, which is the value that the Corporation puts on its present assets. The right hon. Gentleman says that that figure is based partly on buildings, partly on plant and partly on stores, but in determining the cost of closing down the Scheme we cannot arrive at any judgment if we are not told the estimated yield of the £10,500,000 worth of assets. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not close down the Scheme completely because it would cost £4,500,000, but the Government have throughout failed to give us the other part of the calculations which alone will enable us to determine the validity of their arguments. I urge the Minister to interrupt me if he wishes to do so, and tell us the estimated yield from the £10,500,000 worth of assets had they all been disposed of or had the decision been taken to dispose of them all.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Webb: I can answer that straight away. A large part of those assets consist of buildings and installations which, in the event of closing down, would cease immediately to have any value. The Scheme would collapse, the bush would go back, there would be no civilisation there, and therefore those assets would disappear. The hon. and learned Member spoke of a figure of £10½ million, of at least £3 million for buildings and installations, and the large figure of £7½ million which includes plants and machinery, which is stationary and probably in the same category. The point is that liquidation would create a situation in which the assets would have very little value at all, and it might conceivably mean that they would have to be written off as nil.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand those generalisations, but somebody must have made an estimate because we have been told that the cost of disposal would be £1 million; and if someone has estimated the cost of disposal, he must also have estimated the yield. I agree that we would probably not sell for a large figure a building out there where nobody wants it, but someone, in making those global estimates, must have formulated a guess as to what £10½ million of assets would yield. It is that figure which we have repeatedly asked for and have never been given. I am certain it exists somewhere. If it does not, I say that it is misleading the House and the country to say that the cost of closing down the Scheme completely would be £4½million.

Mr. James Hudson: I am anxious to know from the Government whether the figures for the heavy expenditure on large stocks of liquor mean what they seem to mean. For example, to what numbers of people were the stocks related? I would have the Government realise that if those figures really represent what they seem to represent, there are people on these benches who would be extremely concerned; and they would be more concerned still to find nothing said about this.
It may be that it is not fair just now to press for any details, but if a thing like this takes place, it is as good an explanation as any I would expect, for

the failure and mess-up that has taken place in this matter. I hope that a leaf will be turned and that there will not again be anything like that expenditure upon drink in its worst form in the great public enterprises in which we on these benches are interested. I hope the Government can say either that I have it all wrong or that things like this will not happen again.

Mr. Hurd: We are all getting some shocks this evening. I want to induce the Minister to be a little more frank with us about the liabilities facing the Overseas Food Corporation. He has frankly and fully told us the position about Mr. McFadyen, who is retiring from membership of the Overseas Food Corporation. We recognise that he has rendered good and loyal service to the Corporation and that his experience in the other sphere of business has been useful. We also know that Sir Leslie Plummer was the Chairman before he received £8,000 compensation. What we should know this evening, too, if the new Corporation as from 1st April is to have a clean sheet, is what other contingent liabilities there are in respect of other members of the Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Why should we know? The Amendment only says: "shall make regulations for ascertaining, verifying…" in other words, find out what these things are. Surely to say now that hon. Members should know, is repeating what the Amendment says—that we should find out.

Mr. Hurd: The Minister has been good enough, in speaking on this Amendment, to tell us in detail the position about one of the members of the Corporation. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that we should be able to complete the picture in order to know the whole story. I shall not be a minute.

Mr. Rankin: That is no excuse.

Mr. Hurd: I want to ask what the position will be as regards Sir Eric Coates, the present Chairman of the Corporation, who has given excellent service in clearing up the present mess. I do not imagine he will want to continue when it is a small board with its headquarters in West Africa. Can the Minister tell us whether the Overseas Food Corporation from 1st April will have a liability for


a continuing contract or possible pension in respect of Sir Eric Coates and also as regards Sir Charles Lockhart?

Mr. Speaker: We seem to be in a muddle about this. We should come to a conclusion.

Captain Crookshank: This is a—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose—

Captain Crookshank: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman got up. I have my eye on the clock as much as he has. I was going to say that this is a difficult question. We debated it at great length on the Committee stage. I was called away, but I know from my hon. Friends that both Ministers have made statements which during the Committee stage they promised to make. We are grateful for those, and while the right hon. Gentleman has certainly not gone the length we want him to go in this Amendment, as I understand it what he is going to do is to make an inquiry through an independent firm to find out more about the assets.

Mr. Griffiths: May I repeat that we intend to test any doubt on this point by seeking the views of a reputable firm of valuers. I am prepared to undertake that if they take the view that an independent valuation is practicable, once surplus assets have been segregated from those to be retained, I will arrange for such an independent valuation to be carried out. I will also arrange for a report to be published.

Captain Crookshank: While that does not go all the way, it goes some way as far as we are concerned. We are always in the difficulty at this stage of a Bill, when the Minister brings forward a fresh suggestion of that kind, of trying to get consultations while the debate is going on. It is not always easy. Fortunately, under our procedure there is another stage, when this Bill has to go through another place. It may be that after consideration, either side of the House might want to modify or change that suggestion, but as far as it goes at the moment, it certainly seems to be a well-intentioned attempt on the part of the Government to try to meet some of the difficulties with which we are faced.
As for the statement of the Minister of Food, we are obliged to the right hon.

Gentleman for having been able to say as much as he did. If he was not able to answer all the questions because you, Sir, did not think they were strictly in order, perhaps he, too, will find some other means, probably in reply to a Question, to let us know exactly how we stand. That is the general position as I see it, and as we have to consider some more Amendments, perhaps my hon. Friends will be ready to allow the matter to go now.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who moved the Amendment, is not here, so strictly speaking nobody can withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(5) The Overseas Food Corporation shall as soon as possible after the end of each quarter of each financial year of the Corporation make a full report to the Secretary of State on the exercise and performance by them of their functions during that quarter, and he shall lay a copy thereof before each House of Parliament.
We put down this Amendment to enable the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the assurance he gave on the Committee stage of the Bill. During that stage, Ministers made a number of assurances that they would look into matters, and so on, but this morning we found to our surprise that no Government Amendments had been put down.

Mr. J. Griffiths: One.

Captain Crookshank: There were no Government Amendments except one. All the other things about which we had been promised statements during the Report stage could not have been said had not my hon. Friends and I decided that we had better put down Amendments, hoping that they were in order, to give the Government that very opportunity, which they themselves did not take by putting down Amendments. Therefore, the House is very much indebted to us, because were it not for our Amendments the Government could have made no statements at all. Indeed, the statements made on the last Amendment could not have been given. I am surprised that


the Government should let the situation slip in that way.
During the Committee stage, on 28th February, one of the assurances was given to us by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs when we had discussed the very interesting and important question as to how far Ministers would allow Questions to be answered in the House in regard to the activities of the Corporation. The Minister of State said:
If hon. Members think it desirable"—
which, of course, we did; that was the whole basis of our argument—
we"—
that is the Government—
will go into the matter before the Report stage to see whether it is possible in any way for the scope of Questions or of discussion to be widened. I cannot at present say more than that. We will go into the matter and see what can be done, and I hope that the Committee will accept this assurance. We are anxious to answer all the Questions, as we wish the House to have all the information which it can get.
Later, the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself said:
I think we were right in saying that all we can say at the moment is that we will look at the matter again and make a statement on the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1951; Vol. 484, cc. 2154–5, 2159.]
Had we not put down the Amendment, there would be no conceivable possibility of the right hon. Gentleman carrying out his promise. He should certainly be very indebted to us for our vigilance.
I admit, therefore, that to some extent the Amendment is put down as a peg on which the right hon. Gentleman can make the statement, but he could not have made it until after I had moved my Amendment. What we had in mind was to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of saying exactly what the Government intended about how the future activities of the Corporation were to be brought before the House and whether Questions could be put.
We suggest that one of the ways in which the position might be met is that, as the Amendment says, at the end of each quarter of the financial year the Corporation should make a report to the Minister, who should lay it before Parliament. I admit that in public bodies like this it would be unusual to have a quarterly report before Parliament; and

some hon. Members might feel they were getting too much information on the subject. On the other hand, monthly returns are made by Ministers on a variety of topics—the Housing Returns, for example, are monthly reports to the House.
It would be nothing strange to have a quarterly report, although I would not myself press for that if we could get from the right hon. Gentleman a reply which we consider satisfactory to the general question at issue. If he does this, I do not think it would be necessary to continue with the Amendment. If he does not do so, then something of this kind would be desirable, because if he cannot answer questions, then, at any rate, a quarterly report to Parliament would tend to show us the danger signals if there are to be any dangers in the road which the Corporation are to pursue. It is to give that opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman, for which I am sure he is very grateful to us, that we have put down the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I support my right hon. and gallant Friend, but not only on the question of the extent to which there will be wider scope for the House to put Parliamentary Questions to the Minister. On an earlier occasion the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of essence. and gave us to understand that in future we should not be asked to vote global sums in the dark for unspecified schemes but that particular Estimates would be laid before the House for each scheme. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies he will answer not only the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend but also the question in regard to the Estimates.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is, of course, my intention to make a statement about both these questions, and I was waiting for a favourable opportunity to do so. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that on this question about the admissibility of Parliamentary Questions there is no form of Amendment which I myself could have put down, nor could I have done so on the question of the form in which the Estimates would be presented. I have sought advice and I gathered that the appropriate stage at which to make a statement might be the


Third Reading of the Bill, which we propose to take tonight, but since the matter has already been raised and is relevant to both the questions asked, I will make the statement now.
I agree that when we discussed the matter earlier I said that it was my desire to keep the House as fully and as regularly informed as possible about the operation of the Scheme. I also made the point that it seemed to me—but about this I wanted time to consider further the statement I should make—that the fact that now, as from 1st April, subject to the Bill becoming an Act, the Scheme will be serviced by annual Votes, would affect the admissibility of Questions and, in my view, would widen the scope of Questions and the responsibility of the Minister to answer them. I have, therefore, given full consideration to that, and from that further consideration I should like to make this statement.
I remind hon. Members of the position generally as far as Questions relating to public Corporations are concerned. This was stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President on 17th December, 1948, in the Adjournment debate on Questions relating to the Overseas Corporation, when my right hon. Friend said:
…the only sensible working rule is that Ministers should answer where they assume responsibility, and not, save in the exceptional circumstances contemplated by Mr. Speaker's Ruling, on matters of 'public importance,' where the responsibility has been left to the Corporation. If the House thinks that Ministers should assume wider responsibilities, it has other methods of bringing this home to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1546.]
Elsewhere in the same speech, my right hon. Friend mentioned four categories where Questions would be admissible. First, there were Questions relating to the discharge by the Ministers concerned of specific statutory obligations relating to the Corporations. Second, Questions arising from the obligation to consult Colonial Governments and to have regard to the interests of the employees in Colonial Territories. Third, Questions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the discharge by Colonial Governments of their general responsibilities which may bear upon the activities of the Corporations; and fourth, Questions under the "public importance" rule.
Questions under these headings will, of course, continue to be admissible to me. but the effect of the Bill will be to broaden the field of Ministerial responsibility in respect of the Overseas Food Corporation—notably as a result of the powers I shall have in connection with their finance. As a consequence I shall have to concern myself with many matters which were previously left entirely to the Overseas Food Corporation, and I shall be answerable to Parliament on them.
At the same time, I am anxious not to mislead the House, and I should make it clear that what I have said does not mean that I shall be prepared to answer Questions on every detail of management just as if the Corporation were a Government Department. I have no intention of interfering in the details of the Corporation's day-to-day operations and administration, and I do not think that the House would wish me to do so. Certainly I can imagine nothing which would be more likely to promote indecision, lack of initiative and delay than that the men on the spot in Africa should have constantly to ask themselves before they took a decision whether they could be sure that I would agree with it.
The House will not expect me to say exactly where, in practice, the line will be drawn between matters for which I shall be prepared to assume Parliamentary responsibility and those for which the Overseas Food Corporation will alone be responsible. I have indicated broadly what the position will be. The details will obviously have to emerge in practice. However, I can assure the House that I mean to take a broad view of my responsibilities to Parliament. As I have said, I am anxious to keep Parliament fully informed, and I do not think that hon. Members will have any reasonable grounds for complaining that they cannot obtain the information which Parliament needs in order to carry out its responsibilities in regard to the Overseas Food Corporation under the new arrangements.
The form of Estimates submitted to Parliament will consist of a one-line Vote, possibly a separate Vote from the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote, though that has not yet been finally decided. This one-line Vote will comprise a sub-head for expenditure and another sub-head for receipts. The Vote itself will not be supported by detail, but particulars of the proposed expenditure and


anticipated revenue will be given in an appendix to the Estimates. This would permit Members of the House to ask questions at will on all the provisions of the Estimates. I hope that what I have said will satisfy hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the Estimates? Does the proposal mean that the Estimates will be broken down under headings of salaries, equipment and so on? How far shall we be able to go?

Mr. Griffiths: It will be a single-line Vote and will comprise a sub-head for expenditure and a sub-head for receipts. It is my proposal to provide with it an appendix, and in that appendix there will be further details about the sums which are in the sub-heads. I understand that if the Estimates with the one-line Vote and the appendix are published together, the House will have them before it at the same time and this will make the widest possible range of questions permissible in debate.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to his view of responsibility for answering Questions, will he accept the view of the House that we should receive more information about the new Scheme?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, indeed. The only qualification I have to make is that it will be serviced by Vote. That means that I shall have a wider responsibility, but at the same time we would not expect to be questioned about all kinds of tiny details.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain one thing? It is a one-line Vote with two sub-heads, and he said that he would add an appendix.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes.

Sir R. Glyn: The ordinary custom in presenting an Estimate is to have an explanatory note on the opposite page to the Vote. Is there to be any difference here?

Mr. Griffiths: I gather that the way in which I suggest it should be done is the best way to meet the purpose we have in mind, which is to give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter in greater detail. That is the advice I have been given.

Sir R. Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is unusual to have an appendix to a one-line Vote. If that were done in the case of every one-line Vote, the volume would be enormous, if it were adopted as ordinary Government procedure.

Mr. Griffiths: My advice is that for the purposes of this Vote, that would be the best procedure.

Captain Crookshank: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure my hon. Friends are, for the statement he has made, the gist of which is that there will be greater latitude in the control the Minister has over the number of Questions he will be prepared to answer. That seemed very satisfactory and the right hon. Gentleman has shown willing. That is as much as we can expect at this stage.
On the more technical point regarding Estimates, while I see that what the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to do is to produce something in the Estimates in such a form that it will be possible for us to ask more detailed Questions, if he or his successor at any moment said, "I cannot answer that, that is not my concern," hon. Members could turn to the appendix and say "Yes, there is an item in the appendix" and therefore they would have grounds for arguing with him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said, it would be cumbersome if this became the universal practice, but, on the other hand, this is an exceptional case at present. If I might advise the House, the best way would be to leave the matter where the right hon. Gentleman has taken it today.
After all, we are not laying down the form of Estimates for the rest of time. The Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee from time to time make recommendations about alterations in the layout, and I am sure that those Committees would consider this on the purely technical side of the value of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman did not have only that in mind, but was trying also to find some way in which the House as a whole could find pegs on which to hang the Questions, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was trying to meet the case made on the Committee stage. We are very grateful to him. My Amendment gave the right hon. Gentleman an oppor-


tunity of making a statement on the Report stage, which he has done very nicely, and I do not propose to carry the matter further.

Captain Duncan: This year we shall not see this new form of Estimates. Can the right hon. Gentleman in some way put forward the form of the Estimates so that we shall know what sort of Questions we can ask, as otherwise we shall not know until March of next year?

Mr. Griffiths: I could not answer that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out fourteen."
It will be recollected that this Clause enumerates various Sections of the principal Act which are to cease to have effect, namely, Sections 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17. We do not wish Section 14 to cease to have effect. That Section is the one which begins:
The Corporation shall establish a reserve fund.
We cannot see why, with the changeover of the accountability of the Corporation to a different Minister, that it should cease to have a reserve fund. I quite recognise that it is to be financed by annual Votes and not by advances from the Treasury, but there is no reason why, if it is to have proper trading accounts, and be a business concern, it should not have a reserve fund. By deleting Section 14 of the principal Act, we make it impossible for the Corporation to have a reserve fund. If the right hon. Gentleman reads his own White Paper he will see that it says:
A sum of £1,000,000 is to be set aside to cover unforeseen contingencies.
I do not know what is to happen to that £1 million if it is not to be a reserve fund. Unless there is a very good explanation to the contrary, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of this Amendment and will allow the Corporation to have a reserve fund.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Speaker: I realise that this Bill is covered by my Ruling of 1949, when I ruled that the Bill was a general Bill and the debate, although it could extend beyond the context of the Bill, must relate to its general purposes. I remember that I gave that Ruling, because it was the first occasion when the Transport Commission took over. While I do not want to change the procedure tonight, I think it is a matter for consideration by the House whether or not what is really a limited Bill should, in future, have a wide discussion. I can remember, for instance, in the days when there was a North-Eastern Railway and a Great Western Railway, that when we had a Bill dealing with the North-Eastern Railway we could not discuss the Great Western Railway. While I am not saying anything about the present, we ought to bear this in mind in case other Bills are brought forward in the future, as I have no doubt they will be.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for having given that Ruling and having made the position completely clear. It would be impertinent for me, nor would it be my duty, to offer any observations on what you have indicated might be considered in future, and so I will only remark that the Lord President of the Council indicated last autumn that the discussion of this Bill was one of the convenient ways of debating the administration of this nationalised industry.
The extraordinary thing about the Bill is that so ordinary a Bill should be solemnly brought forward when the whole of the British railway system is in so extraordinary a position. It is manifestly clear from the terms of the Bill that it was drafted many months ago before the present situation had arisen. I should not have been surprised if, in view of the developments of the last few weeks, those responsible for promoting it had not decided to withdraw it to see whether, in the new situation created by the events


of the last few weeks, it had not become out of date.
This is a railway general purposes Bill following in direct succession on that promoted by the Transport Commission last year and the year before, with the basic assumption behind it that our railway system is, in the present situation, to continue substantially on the same lines as it has been continued during the last few years. To present this Bill at this stage, shows the complete unreality in which the Transport Commission are living. The events of the last few weeks have turned a steadily declining financial position into a catastrophic one. The right hon. Gentleman may have something to say about that when he replies, but it must be abundantly clear to all Members who have concerned themselves with this matter that, whatever the merits of the decisions of the last few weeks, they have made the financial position of the railways on their present basis of operating quite hopeless.
A steady deficit has been turned into an immense one, and turned into an immense one in circumstances which were the direct result of the intervention of two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which, incidentally, throws a curious light on the illusion sought so sedulously to be preserved by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Transport Commission operate entirely on their own in matters of railway administration, and that it would therefore be a gross interference if he were ever to tell the House what they are doing. We observe, in passing, that the situation here is a result of direct Government action.
It is also a measure of the misdirection of our railways under the present system of operation, that in order to give to those who work on them a rate of wages which still leaves them very badly off compared with most industries, it was none the less necessary to put the railways into the catastrophic position I have described, and to present to the right hon. Gentleman—I understand from the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-croft) on Monday that he is now considering it—the responsibility of deciding whether to direct a further blow at the economy of the country by increasing passenger fares and freight rates.
We know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about this general issue, because on the last occasion that a Bill of this character was debated he went out of his way to express his attitude. He then said:
All the discussions that are taking place, including those in our debate today and last week, and all the evidence submitted by the representatives of some of the major industries of this country, emphasise the seriousness of any substantial increase in railway charges at the present moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 685.]
That was followed within two months by the increase in freight rates to which I have already referred. We are now faced with a situation in which one step, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, is a very serious one, has been taken, and the right hon. Gentleman may tell us later that there is in contemplation, in order to support the financial structure of the railways, a further step in that direction. It is not necessary for me to waste the time of the House by urging the seriousness of the step, because we have had it from the right hon. Gentleman that he realised its seriousness to the country as a whole before he took the step last time.
But it goes further than that. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the Minister of Labour appointed a court of inquiry which sat in connection with the wages dispute on the railways, their Report gave a very clear indication of the opinion of this expert and impartial body which heard the evidence on this issue. Paragraph 232 states:
The question naturally arises whether it would be possible to meet the additional cost of further wage advances by raising the level of fares and freight charges. On the last occasion when the latter were raised, in May, 1950, the advisability of also increasing passenger fares was considered by the Railway Executive, but the conclusion was reached that this would be unwise in view of the declining trend of passenger receipts. A still further rise in freight charges so soon after the last increase would seem to us to be very undesirable"—

Mr. Speaker: I referred to the "general purposes of the Bill," and "general purposes" do not seem to me to cover the rise in fares or freight rates. The general purposes are merely works, lands and protective provisions. It seems to me that fares and wages are quite outside the general purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I, with respect, Sir, make two submissions? In the first case, when you gave the Ruling to which you referred, which is in column 1766 of HANSARD of 22nd February, 1949, you did say that on that Bill matters of fares and administration might be discussed. The question with which your mind is exercised at the moment was referred to, as far as that Bill was concerned, in the Ruling you gave. Secondly, may I, also, submit that this Bill involves the expenditure of substantial sums of money. One of its purposes is to authorise the construction of works all of which have to be paid for, and it is surely material, when a body comes to this House and asks for powers to carry out extensive works, to inquire whether the necessary funds to carry out those works can be obtained at all, or alternatively whether they can be obtained without inflicting grave hardship on the community.

Mr. Speaker: I confess that my own view is—I am not giving a Ruling—that in Bills of this kind those matters are outside their scope. I have allowed the reference that has been made and I have given my warning for the future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that on this occasion a limited reference to the topic which underlies the whole of railway administration would not meet with your displeasure.
I would like to put the following to the House. The advice given by the court of inquiry continues:
A still further rise in freight charges so soon after the last increase would seem to us to be very undesirable, both because of the adverse effects on costs and prices throughout industry in general, and because it would tend to drive still more traffic away from the Railways, a great part of which would accrue to forms of road transport which are not in public ownership. It seems clear that the right solution is not to be found by action along those lines, if it is at all possible to avoid it.
It may well be the only way in which such action can be avoided is for the railways to abandon the proposed works outlined in this Bill. It may be that that is the only way in which they can avoid taking a step of very great seriousness indeed, serious both in its inflationary effect upon the whole of our national economy, since freight charges and passenger rates are elements in the cost of production of practically every commodity in the country; and by reason of the

very grave consideration that a further increase in passenger fares will undoubtedly inflict hardship upon a very deserving section of the community.
I represent in this House a considerable number of people in whose daily and weekly budget the season ticket is a very substantial item, which has to be met if they are to earn their living. They live some distance from their work not because they want to but because, due to the housing situation, they cannot live nearer to it. They have to travel to earn their living, and if a further burden is to be put upon them by increasing the fares which they have to pay they will be given a very severe blow, or, alternatively, further demands for wage increases will inevitably follow. Many of those people are in the black-coated worker category, who are perhaps, in present circumstances, one of the worst-hit sections of the community.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman, in the consideration which, on Monday, he told the House he was giving to this issue, to remember how serious to these people in particular, as to the community in general, would be a further increase in fares. It is highly doubtful whether that would serve the purpose of balancing the accounts or reducing the deficit of the Railway Executive. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar—I do not know whether all hon. Members are—with the steady downward tendency of passenger receipts. In round figures they were £122 million in 1948, £113 million in 1949, and they were down to £106 million last year.
All hon. Members who have compared the comparatively empty trains, particularly in the summer, with the overcrowded buses, appreciate that it is the height of railway fares which is driving people from the railways. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that I warned him more than four years ago, across the Floor of the House, that this would inevitably be the consequence. It seems to me to be a counsel of despair for the right hon. Gentleman, in face of these declining figures, and in our present national financial position, to seek to reinforce passenger earnings by an increase in passenger fares. I warn him again that if he does that he will see that decline accelerated not only in passenger miles


but in the money earned by the Railway Executive.
One would expect that in this situation the Railway Executive, instead of producing this ordinary, routine Bill, to enable them carry on in their ordinary routine way, would have reviewed the whole of our railway system drastically with a view to drastic changes and drastic economies. One would also have expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen to it that they did so. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked the right hon. Gentleman last Monday whether he would issue any general direction to the Commission to do this. The right hon. Gentleman, in a written answer, stated:
I do not feel it is necessary for me to issue any such directions to the British Transport Commission"—
[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I ask the hon. Member who said "Hear, hear," to follow what his right hon. Friend said. The answer continued:
The Transport Act places on the Commission the general duty of providing or securing or promoting the provision of an economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport, and the fulfilment of this obligation will involve questions of the type which the hon. Member has in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2.]
I understand that to mean that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Transport Commission might spare some time sometime to consider this matter, but so far as any indication we have been given in this Bill or in any other direction as concerned no such steps have been taken. I would draw the attention of the Minister and of the Transport Commission to words written by Mr. Norman Crump in last Sunday's "Sunday Times," which seem to me to sum up the present situation in a couple of sentences. He wrote:
What is needed today is ruthlessness. It is agreed that redundant branches and stations must be closed.

Mr. Bing: This Bill deals, in the main, with a part of the country where there are only five route miles for every 100,000 inhabitants. In the hon. Member's constituency there are 12 route miles to every 100,000 inhabitants. Is the hon. Member suggesting that there are redundant stations in that area?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am suggesting that the hon. and learned Gentleman has

not read the Bill. If he would apply his undoubted intellectual capacity to the Bill, he would see that it covers the United Kingdom. It covers a level crossing at a place in Wales, so remote that I cannot venture to pronounce its name, and in almost any part of the United Kingdom this Bill will operate. Perhaps before intervening again the hon. and learned Gentleman will avail himself of a copy of the Bill and read it.
I do hope—and this is a point of very great seriousness not only to the Commission but to the country—that we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman tonight, whether or not he tells us that the Bill is to be withdrawn, that the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive are concentrating on this problem.
There are three types of railway operation which are really remunerative—heavy goods traffic, passenger traffic in suburban areas surrounding London and very large conurbations, if I may adopt the term of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), and fast long-distance main line trains. But every hon. Member knows that throughout this country there are branch lines which are simply not earning their keep, where there is all the expenditure on maintenance of track, signals, staff, stations, etc., in order to operate perhaps a half a dozen trains, passenger and freight, each way every day; and where the loss on that part of the system is steadily increasing, with no hope whatever of being reduced.
What are the Railway Executive doing about that? I understand that to close those lines they would require powers to be included in a Bill of this sort. Do they intend to do it? The only line which so far as I know has been closed at all as a result of this situation is one which has been closed by the matrimonial arrangements of the local fireman.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct the attention of the Transport Commission to consider just this sort of line; the sort of line in which it is stated that there are five trains only in each direction and in which the staffing arrangements are such that when one man enters into the estate of holy matrimony—and I am sure that all hon. Members would wish him happiness—out of the whole 610,000 employees of the Transport Commission one man cannot be found to replace him, and the whole railway is closed.


I have no doubt that, by now, out of that 610,000 one man has been found; but the very fact that this incident is reported in this morning's issue of "The Times" indicates not only the rather curious workings of the staffing of British Railways, but, still more, the fact that lines of this wholly unremunerative character are still being operated.
I hope we shall not hear the old argument in support of that, that they must be maintained for strategic reasons. If they are, surely the Chiefs of Staff should consider it. Indeed, if they are there is a case for closing them, putting them on a care and maintenance basis and handing them over to the Service Departments rather than imposing the burden upon the whole community, and providing a heavy weight in resistance to legitimate wage claims throughout the industry by carrying a large number of wholly unremunerative lines where the traffic could perfectly well be carried by motor transport—and I hope that motor transport would be under private enterprise. I express that hope in the interests of the inhabitants of the areas concerned.
How has the Transport Executive dealt with the question of staff? There are still 22,000 more men employed by British Railways than were employed before the war, though the freight hauled is something like 20 million tons a year less. Must not something be wrong there? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the shorter working week."] I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I am coming to that, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want me to get my arguments out of order. I imagine that there are two reasons. The first is the excessive staffing at headquarters. I cannot enter into that, because it would lead me into discussing matters which you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated cannot be discussed. But so far as the actual operating staff are concerned, I think the hon. Member opposite is quite right, and that the shorter working week is in some degree responsible.
The issue has to be faced frankly by the country and by the railways as to whether in the present position shorter working hours can be accepted. Is it right that at a time when, in order to arrive at even reasonable rates of pay these huge deficits have to be incurred. the hours of work should be shorter

than before the war? Is it also right, at a time when manpower is the most precious of all the commodities in our national economy, that by reason of the shorter working hours, more men should be employed on the railways, if, as a result, there is a shortage of manpower elsewhere? Surely that is a point which the Railway Executive, if they are to maintain financial stability, have to consider.
I would say at once, and I will say this for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, that the railways have had a very raw deal from the National Coal Board. They have had the cost of their coal put up by 4s. 2d. and their supplies cut down; with the result that the railways have had to reduce their services this spring, resulting in a good deal less revenue while the overhead costs remain substantially the same. Surely that indicates that the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to get a bit tough with the Coal Board in the interests of British Railways, and I hope he will tell us that he proposes to do so.
But British Railways have not responded to this difficult situation as efficiently as they might. Hon. Members are no doubt aware of the case of a train from Dudley to Walsall which was taken off on the grounds of coal shortage; and of the fact that, as the train from Walsall to Dudley had not been taken off, and the rolling-stock was needed for the purposes of that return train, the outward train had to be operated empty—with one exception.
When a passenger, who had not read the latest bulletin about the number of trains to be taken off, desired to travel on the train proposed to be cancelled—but which was physically there in the station—with one of those wonderful acts of compromise of which the British people are capable, he was allowed to travel, not in the empty passenger compartments, but in the guard's van. While it is granted and conceded at once that the Coal Board have let the railways down, surely that was not a particularly efficient method of dealing with the difficulty thrust upon them.
The lack of effort to reform the whole system is only too apparent and I would suggest to the House that we ought not to pass this Bill authorising, as it inevit-


ably does, further financial commitments, unless and until we have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that some effort is being made to cope with the existing financial situation; and that the Railway Executive are not just drifting on in the old way in the hope that when things get too bad the Government will come along with a subsidy to assist them. In small as well as great things we see the same process in operation, the same disregard of the necessity for rigid economy in every direction. For example, on 19th January of this year there appeared an advertisement in "The Times" headed, "British Transport Commission." It stated:
Applications are invited for the post of curator in charge of the Historical Relics Section of the British Transport Commission, which is about to be established in London. The holder of the post would be responsible for organising, on a national scale, the custody and display of old prints, models, typographical specimens and other relics... The commencing salary is £1,000 per annum.
Is this really the moment for the Transport Commission, in their present position, to go into the museum business? Even though, in close connection with the transport industry, they may not have difficulty in finding suitable exhibits?

Mr. Poole: Is the hon. Member offering himself?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member will be aware, exhibits in a museum are always of value, so I appreciate his compliment.
Then there is the advertising scandal. When, through no fault of British Railways, services are being cut down, we find stations covered with expensive and delightful posters encouraging people to travel. That shows the same lack of coordination as was shown by London Transport, who put up posters advising people to visit the West End of London to see the shop window lights at the very moment when the Minister of Fuel and Power was engaged in making any such display a criminal offence. There is the fact of the ruling by the Railway Executive to which I referred last year, that revenue was not to be obtained by the acceptance of private advertisements on time-tables, which has thrown away, at any rate, some appreciable revenue for no appreciable reason.
There is the case of the Inner Circle line in London, which is still operated in a security black-out which might well be the envy of the Service Departments. It is quite impossible to ascertain when a train will come or, it having arrived, when it will depart. There are dirty railway coaches still to be seen on a great many lines; to be quite precise, on the electric lines operating out of Waterloo into the suburban areas, where carriages are intolerably filthy for a railway operated by and on behalf of a civilised community.
There are many other points which will no doubt be raised by other hon. Members. But the biggest point, and the one which I beg the House to consider with the seriousness which it demands, is that this may be the last chance for the British Railways; vital as they are to our community and to the 610,000 faithful railwaymen who operate them; vital as they are to our defence in war and our transport in peace; and which are now carrying a financial burden which they show no signs whatever of trying to carry.
I hope that we shall be told, none the less, that at this eleventh hour something is being done. I hope that we shall have a little more than the stone-walling for which the Minister has made himself famous. This is a big issue which is vital to our economy. We in this House cannot take the responsibility of passing this Bill, of giving our authority to the Transport Commission to carry on as at present when most of us know in our hearts that to carry on as at present is to carry on along the road to economic disaster.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I hope that hon. Members opposite will not accuse me of being out of order if I stick rather closely to the terms of the Bill. I do so out of no discourtesy whatever to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but because I think that, had he studied actually what was in the Bill and had he gone a little bit into the history of the need for the provisions contained in it, he would have found the answer to many of the rhetorical questions which he asked. He would have found in Clause 5 that of the 10 works set out, the three principal ones are in connection with improving transport in the North-East London area.
If one looks at what is probably the most important Clause—Clause 16 and


the Third Schedule—one sees that no fewer than 14 out of the 15 areas taken over are areas taken in order to improve the old London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. For any hon. Members who represent those areas, those are most important and most necessary reforms. When I tried to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I said that in his constituency there are, roughly speaking, 12 track route miles for every 100,000 inhabitants in that suburban area. In the suburban area represented by many of my hon. Friends on the northern part of the Thames east of London, there are only five miles of track for every 100,000 inhabitants.
That, of course, has resulted in gross overcrowding on the existing railways. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why that is so, he can find out. It is because certain types of the transport, including suburban transport, of which he spoke, as being so remunerative, were not thought to be remunerative by the sort of people who ran the railways before the war. He would have done well had he looked at the debates on the London Passenger Transport Financial Agreement of 1935. That was the agreement which was preparing for the various reforms set out in the Bill we are now discussing.
I will answer him with words from "Improving London's Transport," a "Railway Gazette" publication dated May, 1946, which is written from the point of view of the railway companies. They point out, quite fairly and openly, that of course the people who ran the railways realised that railways perform a social function, but that they would not build the railway unless there was some profit in it. They said:
Thus, in the years immediately before and after the 1914 war the projection of tube trains over electrified tracks of main-line railways was very much to the fore in the policy of those responsible for the conduct of the underground group of railways, and it was chiefly financial limitations which prevented more being done in this way.
Later they say:
The transport undertakings concerned would not, however, venture upon major additions and improvements because, although they recognised the need, they did not feel justified in risking fresh capital expenditure, even assuming they were in a position to raise such capital.…It was recognised that the area having the highest claim to consideration was the north-east sector of London"—

the area dealt with very largely by this Bill—
(i.e., that part within the London Passenger Transport area east of the River Lea and north of the River Thames), but, when the traffic came to be examined, it was found that the revenue estimated from any satisfactory scheme of new and improved railways facilities in that area was likely to be insufficient to render it self-supporting at the rate of interest that might have to be paid upon the capital expenditure involved. This was due primarily to two causes: first, a predominantly industrial population, which means that the traffic to be carried would be mainly in the peak hours, and a large proportion at workmen's fares, and secondly, the high cost of the works themselves.
What was done by these independent railways? They came to the Government and to this House to get the Exchequer to guarantee not only the principal but the interest as well in order to carry out the very works of which these we are now discussing are the continuation.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the works mentioned in Clause 5. Will he tell us which of them are of any benefit to railway passengers? As far as I can see, they mostly refer to bridges over railways.

Mr. Bing: Very naturally. The hon. Gentleman should travel in a railway train on some occasion. Then he would know that one of the difficulties which hold up transport is the presence of level crossings.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see from the Clause that the reference is to the widening of existing bridges. It has nothing to do with level crossings.

Mr. Bing: Why not? I do not propose to deal with every single position, though I am perfectly prepared to do so. I will dilate a little later on these matters of bridges if the House will excuse me for taking almost as long as the hon. Member for Kingston upon-Thames, which I do not want to do. I could deal with each of these matters, and I would do so were there not many of my hon. Friends in whose constituencies these places are situated who want to say a few words in favour of these projects.
Generally speaking, all these works are designed to improve the general flow of transport in the various areas. Of course, where there is a large goods marshalling


area—and this is what I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind—then it is necessary to have a large road leading into it. If I may explain it very simply to the hon. Gentleman, it is not only necessary to carry the goods in a truck to a certain point; it is necessary that there should be some access to the area so that the goods can be placed in some other vehicle and taken somewhere else. For that purpose, it is very often necessary to have a road. Having dealt with the hon. Member, perhaps I can resume the trend of my argument.
The first step in this general plan for improving a large triangle of railways was the electrification of the line as far as Shenfield. I think that I speak on behalf of all those hon. Members who represent that area when I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on carrying through that project. But what was the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite on that reform which has very greatly increased the railway income in that area? I remember speaking, not in this House but on the wireless, with a man who I think is the principal economic brain behind the campaign of hon. Gentlemen opposite on such matters—Mr. Roy Harrod. He advocated that this plan should be abandoned. He said that the money saved would have enabled us to abolish the basic petrol ration. That is the kind of practical approach by the Conservative Party which we find when dealing with a problem of suburban traffic in an area which is absolutely vital to the ordinary person.
But this Bill deals more immediately with the problem of how we can most effectively improve and co-ordinate the old London, Tilbury and Southend line. A great deal of the delays in the traffic in this area was due to the entirely unco-ordinated policy of the old railway companies.

Mr. McAdden: Nonsense.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman says "nonsense." If he likes, I will give him some illustrations of it from his own publications. In the London district, the London Passenger Transport had running rights, but the line belonged to the L.M.S. It is true that it was a long way from the rest of the possessions of the L.M.S.—it was just a little appendage of

the L.M.S. Therefore, the whole of the transport was confused, because there were not only running rights for London Transport on the L.M.S. line but there were also all sorts of crossings for the L.N.E.R.
We had a class of railways operated by conflicting interests, which meant that a man in any signal box would be saying, "You must let my train go first; I own the rails," or "I pay more, and so my train should be first." Anyone who has been held up in this fashion or who has investigated, as many of us on the South-Eastern Traffic Advisory Committee have done, the detailed reasons for this delay, know exactly that it is due to this ridiculous and stupid quarrel between the old L.M.S. Company and the London Passenger Transport Board as to who should be given priority.
One of the objects of this Bill, which I am sure we all welcome, it to provide much bigger marshalling yards on the Southend line, which carries very heavy goods traffic. The reason this line cannot carry such heavy passenger traffic during the daytime is because there are insufficient marshalling yards, and, in consequence, goods trains have to be employed in the daytime, whereas, if they could be marshalled properly, they could be dealt with at times when there is not such peak passenger traffic.

Mr. McAdden: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means by peak passenger traffic? Does he not know that there is only one train an hour?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman would not appreciate this, but in my constituency most people are working people. They have to go regularly to work at regular hours, and naturally those hours are the hours of peak travel. If he visits the Tube, he will see a poster which describes peak hours and rush hours as being the hours when most people have to travel. I assure him that it is quite a well-known thing, and perhaps some of his own hon. Friends will be able to tell him more about it.
It is necessary, before we can hope to avoid moving goods trains at these periods, to increase the marshalling yards. Whether or not that is the sort of point which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) may like to say


a word or two about, I do not know; whether a marshalling yard should be in his constituency or not is a matter which we may argue later on. I would only say that it seems to me that, to introduce, as I understand is to be introduced, a marshalling yard with 48 tracks, when Crewe, the largest of which I know, has only 60, is a very serious undertaking, and that, if it is done, those of us who represent other constituencies will appreciate the contribution which Barking will be making to the solving of the general traffic problem in South-East London. We are also expecting to have in my own constituency, at Upminster, a marshalling yard for the District Line trains.
I should like, before I conclude, to ask the Minister if he can tell us—and perhaps we can persuade him to deal with the Bill as well as some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, when he comes to reply—a little bit more about the reasons for these various works. We know that this Bill is to make general improvements on the Southend line, but can my right hon. Friend tell us what are the prospects of electrification? We know that, quite rightly, he has pressed ahead with the preliminary work, but can he give us some idea of the flow of traffic we may expect when this electrification takes place, because it is a very considerable problem in my constituency and in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy)? Finally, we have the level-crossing question. We have a track which is seriously impeded by hundreds of level crossings, which connect the industrial areas with the residential areas, and it is of great importance that we should press on as soon as possible with bridge building.
Now, if I may come to one more detailed point, I notice that among the other work suggested is the widening or improvement of the loop line from Upminster to Pitsea. It is quite obvious why this work is being undertaken, because that is an area of new towns, and it will result, of course, in a considerable increase, very shortly, in the population of the area. The difficulty is that we have found it difficult enough to get out of Upminster.
May I just make one suggestion here, which was made as long ago as 1935 during the debate on the London Passenger

Transport (Financial Agreement) Bill by the hon. and learned Gentleman who now sits for Ilford, North (Mr. G. Hutchinson)? It is that there should be electrification of the spur line which run between Upminster and Romford, which will enable the traffic which will be brought into Upminster by means of the Pitsea line to be carried on the new and excellent electric service from Romford. The only other point which I would urge on my right hon. Friend is that he might consider, if it is impracticable to electrify the line in places where one train goes all the way in one direction and then comes all the way back again, whether it would not be possible to fit a diesel engine or something of that sort and provide a shuttle service in order to clear the congestion which we encounter at present at Upminster Station.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), if he has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would like to deal with a number of local problems. I entirely endorse what I hope he would be able to say on that subject, especially about the need of facilities for bridges over the line. One does not need to live in the constituency in order to be run over by a train, because it is an equal danger to those people who live in neighbouring constituencies.
If I may just put myself in order with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames by talking about something which is a very pressing problem connected with the railways, but which would be as difficult to relate to the Bill as most of the things to which the hon. Gentleman devoted his speech, I should like to refer to one small but important staff matter. There does exist in certain classes or staff grades in the railways an organisation which is at present causing certain feelings of annoyance and disquiet and which is known as the Foremen's and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society. There is nothing against such an organisation existing in regard to rail transport, and, because it was taken over from the previously existing companies, 50 per cent. of the contributions are being paid by the Commission. I do not think there is anything to be said against that, but there is a rule of this body that no one who is a trade unionist can belong to it, and that seems to me to be a most undesirable provision.

Mr. Poole: Would my hon. and learned Friend allow me? I have received a telegram about this body, and I have been asking my hon. Friends to see if anybody knew anything about it. Can he give us any idea of the membership of this organisation or the date when it was formed, because, in 30 years in the railway service, I have never heard of it?

Mr. Bing: This is a matter which has been brought to me by my own union, the A.S.S.E.T. It affects a number of certain technical services. I assure my hon. Friend that it is so, and it is a matter which has been discussed by the T.U.C for a long period of time. It is most undesirable that contributions should be paid from the funds of any statutory body like the British Transport Commission to an organisation which makes it a rule that no members shall be trade unionists.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? Does he say that this organisation is confined to the old Tilbury Line?

Mr. Bing: No.

Sir R. Glyn: He means that it is a general society?

Mr. Bing: Yes, it is a general society, and it is not even confined to the railways. This society, which has some 60,000 members, performs very useful functions in providing for extra benefits and things of that sort. It is an excellent organisation in that respect, but I think it is undesirable that such organisations should receive contributions from the State or from public funds when there is a rule to exclude trade unionists.
I am not suggesting that another rule should be made that everybody belonging to the society should be a trade unionist, but I am saying that it is undesirable that they should say that trade unionists must be excluded. [An HON. MEMBER: "Closed shop in reverse."] Yes, a closed shop in reverse. It is indeed extraordinary that this organisation has never been referred to by hon. Members opposite when they have dealt so thoroughly and exhaustively with this problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have never heard of it."] Hon. Members can take it from me that it does exist and that it has some members who are employed by the

British Transport Commission. I do not lay great stress on it, but I only felt that hon. Members opposite would be very disappointed if I did not introduce something which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill before us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was just thinking that I was feeling a little disappointed.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry. I do not think you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when the previous discussion took place as to the width we might go, but in view of the great number of subjects discussed, including the marriage of one railway employee, I thought that before I concluded I might at least be entitled to return to the rather wider field which had previously been traversed. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, while dealing with those wide points, he will pay particular attention to the very urgent matters contained in the Bill which affect the constituents of many hon. Members.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument, because I wish, rather, to deal with the administrative efficiency, or otherwise, of British Railways. I think I shall be able to show the House that "otherwise" is the operative word. We are dealing with a Bill conferring extensive powers on the British Transport Commission. It is my submission that the existing powers exercised by them are misused, or, at any rate, not used to much purpose. They are not providing an adequate railway service, and I hope to give the House some particular examples of that on the railway line in the Eastern area, which serves my constituency.
This is a matter of administration, and similar complaints were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) about the Southend service the other week: Since then, the Minister has had a good many anxieties with which to contend, culminating in a serious reverse in the House last Friday. I must say that he accepts the buffetings of public life in a spirit of very cheerful resignation, though, possibly, "resignation" is hardly the most


appropriate word to use in the circumstances.
The matter to which I wish particularly to refer is, I acknowledge, a local one, but it is also, I think, symptomatic of the railway situation as a whole, and is one of very great importance to my constituents. The House will gather how important it is to them when I say that I first began to get a trickle of complaints about the service last October, which later became a flood. I have received over 90 letters on the subject, and as many verbal complaints.
During the Christmas Recess, I held a non-political meeting of delegates from all the women's organisation in North London, and this was the first matter they raised. It assumed in their minds a priority over such serious subjects as meat, coal and houses, and that is saying something in these days. If the women felt like that, how much more do the men feel who have to travel on the railways every day to and from their work? I will tell the House how they feel by quoting one or two extracts from a few letters. Mr. Townshend, of Crunnells Green, Preston, says:
For the past eight weeks I do not remember a single evening train that I have been on arriving on time.…Little interest or attention is paid to it and it consistently arrives 20 to 40 minutes late on a very slow schedule.
Another writer says:
Trains have been late in starting and very late in arriving (anything up to 60 minutes and even 90 minutes late).
Another gentleman, Mr. Lawmon, of Hitchin, says:
On Friday last, 22nd December, 1950, in common with many others I went to Fins-bury Park on instructions from the railway authorities, as per their notices, to catch a train to Stevenage. I arrived at Finsbury Park at 5.20 p.m., but no trains left for Stevenage until 7.15 p.m., and then only by the station master obtaining permission for a train—all stations to Welwyn Garden City only—to be extended to all stations to Hitchin.…We eventually de-trained at Stevenage at 8.15 p.m. A total time for the journey from the City to home at 8.30 p.m. of four hours.
He goes on to say:
The weather…was very cold and "there is no colder, draughtier place than a railway station. I saw one fellow collapse while waiting.
Another gentleman writes:
Conditions which have obtained during the past fortnight or so are nothing short of fantastic.…Getting to and from one's office

and spending up to five hours per day in the process is becoming a positive nightmare.

Mr. Gunter: On a point of order. I should like some further guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the Ruling given earlier in this debate, and also to call your attention to Mr. Speaker's Ruling in 1949 on the first Private Bill introduced by the British Transport Commission. Mr. Speaker said then, and I quote from Erskine May:
The debate could, therefore, extend beyond the contents of the Bill, although it must remain related to its purpose.
I am wondering what is the relationship between the purpose of this Bill and the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have that Ruling in my hand, but I was led to believe that the debate had been allowed to go very wide before I arrived.

Mr. Gunter: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, early in the debate Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that it was going very wide, and gave a warning.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I think the Ruling which was given was quite fair. It was that on such occasions as this it was always competent, with regard to a general purposes Bill on railways, to raise matters of the character raised by my hon. Friend. I do not want to delay the House, but I could, with reference not only to this Bill, but to that presented in 1949, and with regard to the Bill presented a year ago, give specific examples of the same kind of points being raised. If I could carry the matter further, I need only refer to the speech made by the Lord President of the Council on this subject when he specifically said that this was one of the opportunities which the House would have to raise matters of this character. He said that, when we were complaining that there were not sufficient opportunities—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree—for raising matters of this character. The Leader of the House said that when an annual Bill was presented, that was our opportunity. I think it unfair to challenge that Ruling now.

Mr. Gunter: I was not challenging any Ruling. I read a quotation from Erskine May, which is something, I think, any


hon. Member is entitled to do. In view of the warning already given by Mr. Speaker, during the earlier part of the debate, I feel quite justified now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in asking you how far we may go.

Mr. Thorneycroft: May I say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker gave no such warning? What he said was that this year he proposed to give exactly the same Ruling as he gave last year and the year before. The warning he gave was that it might be a matter for the House to consider whether, in future years, it would not be wise, possibly, to consider some limitation on certain aspects of the debate, but it was perfectly plain that it was for future years and not for this year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand, on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, that the debate could go beyond the confines of the Bill. That seems a fairly wide Ruling. I did, however, express disappointment to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), when he was speaking about a particular trade union.

Mr. Gunter: With great respect, I cannot see the difference between introducing railway trade unions into the matter and introducing the matters already brought in, namely, wages, salaries and conditions of service. I have quoted from Erskine May, which is our authority and it would be as well, in the interests of all who hope to participate in the debate, to know exactly where we stand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It seems to me that the Ruling is very wide. I only expressed my disappointment. I did not stop the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). It seems to me that the Ruling allows anything beyond the contents of the Bill, provided that it relates to its purpose. I think it is a very wide Ruling.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, following upon statements from the benches opposite about the conditions of railway stations and things of that kind, we on this side will be entitled to speak about the conditions of railway stations before they were taken over by British Railways.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is related to the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. John Hay: May I draw attention to Mr. Speaker's Ruling in 1949? [HON. MEMBERS: "We have had that."] Mr. Speaker said then:
I should have thought that one could not challenge the decision of the House that the railways were to be nationalised, as that has been decided, but matters of fares, administration in this Bill would, I think, be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1766.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Ruling applies to matters which go beyond the Bill, but which are related to its purposes.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What are hon. Members opposite so nervous about?

Mr. Gunter: I have not the page number from the quotation in Erskine May, but it says that discussion must be related to the purpose of the Bill. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is clearly defined in the Bill and we are anxious to know if it is Mr. Speaker's Ruling that debate must be confined to the purpose of the Bill or can relate to anything that has to do with the Transport Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It could extend beyond the content of the Bill, but must be related to the railways. If discussion goes beyond the content of the Bill it looks to me as if it could go a long way so long as it relates to the railways.

Mr. Poole: I think Mr. Speaker said that discussion must be related to the purpose of the Bill, and not to the Transport Commission. If it is in order to go beyond the purpose of the Bill then I take it it would be perfectly in order for me, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk about the operation of road transport, canals, and so on, because they affect the operations of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I think we might get on with the debate. As I understand it, on a general purposes Bill for the railways one can talk about railway administration beyond the contents of the Bill. It would be out of order if the Bill specifically referred to some local purpose. One could refer to road transport, for instance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Road transport goes beyond the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Gunter: If one can talk, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) did, about the effects of this Bill on the economy of the railways and upon the wages of railway-men then surely it would be in order to discuss the effect of road haulage competition upon railway wages, and so on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We had better wait until that arises. That seems to me a bit wide.

Mr. William Ross: What we want to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether or not it would be in order to relate speeches to the purpose of the Bill, or to the purposes of the Railway Executive or the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should like to hear the speeches first. Debate can go beyond the contents of the Bill, but it must be related to the purpose.

Mr. Ross: To the purpose of what?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: After all that discussion I feel that I must start my speech over again. However, I promise that I will not double the length of it on that account. As I understand the Ruling, we are allowed to refer to the administration of the railways, and I propose very briefly to quote one or two more examples on this point of administration. Another constituent, a Mr. Swinscow, says:
It would be an understatement to say that I should be most grateful if you could get something done about our railway service. If you could manage that it would earn you the gratitude of thousands living up and down our line.
I hope the Minister will make it possible for me to earn that gratitude. He goes on:
Many times my train home has been an hour late on a journey that should take under an hour. Even yesterday (5th January) the 5.39 was half an hour late at Knebworth, yet there was no snow and no holiday. In any case, can the snow be responsible? It has not been particularly bad. Trains run in Switzerland.
The same correspondent went on:
Can you get someone to straighten things out? Perhaps some measure of my frustration is given by the fact that this is the only

occasion on which I have written to my Member of Parliament.
Another correspondent, a Mr. Pooley, says:
They were dreadful before they were taken over.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Mr. Fisher: I hope hon. Members opposite will wait, because he goes on:
But then a steady decline set in and this last few months have been worse than anything.
Here is another point. The same correspondent, in another letter, says:
Coach No. 88357 has been running on this line with a steam leak for several weeks since Christmas.…The upholstery was sodden and the door so swollen that only a strong man could force it open from the inside.
I see that hon. Members opposite are getting a little restive, but it is a fact that even last week I had a letter from a gentleman saying that the 5.39 train arrived on schedule for the first time since early October. That letter came from Mr. John Edwards of Hitchin.

Mr. Manuel: Where does that particular train—the gentleman's train—which the hon. Member mentions, run?

Mr. Fisher: They are all gentlemen in my constituency. I appreciate that individual complaints may be misleading. But many constituents have gone further and kept careful records of time-keeping over long periods. The Christmas period was the worst. The 5.39 p.m. train arrived 46 minutes late every day for a week on a journey of 30 miles. The 5.52 p.m. train arrived 75 minutes late every day from 18th December to 3rd January. In some cases the trains were from two to three hours late. It was at this period that the Londoner's Diary in the "Evening Standard" published the story that we were going to put sleepers on the Hitchin line.
Another record kept from 23rd October, 1950, to 15th January this year gives a broader view, as it excludes the Christmas period. The 5.10 p.m. train, in 18 journeys, was 11 minutes late on the average. The 5.39 p.m. train averaged 15 minutes late or 29 journeys and the 5 p.m. train, which is known as the "non-stop businessman's flier," averaged 23 minutes late. The 8.5 p.m., another non-stop train, averaged 11 minutes late.


All these times excluded Christmas, which would have made the times far worse.
I hoped for an improvement after Christmas but the same thing went on, with morning trains averaging 15 minutes late and the evening trains averaging 20 to 30 minutes late. I am grateful for the barracking of hon. Members opposite, and I hope I have given the Minister enough evidence to convince him that there are reasonable grounds for these complaints.

Mr. Snow: What was it that the hon. Gentleman called the 5 p.m. train?

Mr. Fisher: I called it the "non-stop businessman's flier." It is supposed to be very fast and it does not stop on the journey.

Mr. Snow: Is this same gentleman one of the persons who wants the workers to work longer hours while he gets off at 5 p.m.?

Mr. Fisher: That is an extremely funny remark, but as a matter of fact I am coming to that point a little later. I do not claim that this particular service was ever a very good one. In fact, the poor service in Hertfordshire is a reason why it has remained so unspoiled and countrified a county. People could not tolerate this sort of thing and went to live elsewhere. After all, they had to get to their offices. But, despite that, they would gladly exchange the pre-war state of affairs for the present chaos.
For my part I have been very patient, as I have been in the House tonight. I have given the authorities every chance to improve the position. I wrote many pathetic appeals to the chief administration officer and I must say that he always replied most courteously. Indeed, he always replied in the same vein and almost in the same words. On 17th November he replied to a letter which I had written on 17th October—he took a month to answer it. In his reply he admitted that the "timekeeping has not been as satisfactory as we should like."
On 11th January, replying to a letter of mine of 7th December—nearly a month this time—he wrote:
It is much regretted that the timekeeping of the trains between London and Hitchin has continued to be unsatisfactory.

He added:
The question of the punctuality of these services is a matter with which we are very much concerned at present, and every endeavour is being made to effect an improvement.
Later, he wrote saying that the services
were temporarily disorganized…largely owing to absenteeism…and sickness and other causes. I can assure you that the circumstances were exceptional. The inconveniences experienced…are very much regretted.
The last letter said:
We are much concerned at the timekeeping of these trains, and every effort is being made to effect an improvement.
It will be seen, therefore, that there are always the same expressions of regret, always the same long strings of excuses and the same pious hopes of improvement. I waited patiently for these improvements to come about, but finally I gave it up and went to see Lord Hurcomb. Lord Hurcomb and his chief publicity officer received me most courteously and listened very patiently, as the House has done this evening, to this line of talk. He assured me that something would be done, and I accept his assurance absolutely. Indeed, in the last two weeks I am bound to say that there has been a slight improvement.
But surely, in a great public service of this kind, it should not be necessary for so many to endure so much for so long. It should not be necessary for a Member of Parliament to be literally deluged with letters, nor should it be necessary for the Chairman of the British Transport Commission to have to intervene personally in a matter of this kind. It is, indeed, a sad commentary on the way in which this public monopoly is organised.
Of course, the British people are very long suffering. They always make a joke of their tribulations. I heard a story the other day about a man, I believe unhappy in his married life, who decided to commit suicide and who lay down on the Hitchin line. He died, but not because he was run over by a train. He died from bronchitis and malnutrition through waiting for the non-stop business man's flier from King's Cross. To be more serious—

Mr. Fernyhough: Serious!

Mr. Fisher: The unpunctuality of these trains leads, on occasions, to very unjust


allegations. There was some criticism recently at Letchworth of their Majesties the King and Queen. It was rumoured that delays on the railways were due to the Royal departure for Sandringham. I was sure that this was untrue and I wrote to British Railways for the facts. I should like to quote from the reply which was that
neither of these trains was in any way affected by the running of the Royal train…the delays…were due entirely to the density of the relief train programme and to difficulties…in the King's Cross Motive Power District during the Christmas period.
I am glad to have that opportunity to read that, because it scotches the absolutely baseless rumour which has been circulating in my constituency.
Apart from questions of unpunctuality, complaints reach me all the time about trains being overcrowded, unheated, badly lit or not lit at all, very dirty, and with windows seldom cleaned. On three consecutive mornings there was the same very large pile of orange peel in the same compartment, indicating that the compartment had not been cleaned for three days. Another complaint was that the figure "3rd" had been scratched out from the carriage window and the figure "1st" painted in. I asked for an explanation and was told that there was a shortage of rolling stock. Of course, that may be so, but it is hardly a sufficient explanation. At any rate, it is a very cynical explanation. It means, apparently, that British Railways think it is quite all right to charge first-class fares for third-class amenities.
Another example is shown in the attitude of the staff. A complaint by a lady whose train was extremely late received this reply from one of the staff—"That is nothing; it is often much worse than that. "This casual, uninterested, cynical sort of attitude implies that it is quite absurd to complain. By contrast there was the more sympathetic type of approach at King's Cross, where a member of the staff said to a constituent of mine, "I beg you to complain because the complaints of the staff are always totally ignored." In their different ways both these approaches reveal a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
If I may turn to the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), even schedules are

not beyond reproach. There is no fast train to Hitchin between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. Most men cannot catch the 5 p.m. train. I appreciate that there is a stopping train, but it is inconvenient and what they would appreciate and what they want is a fast train from London to Hitchin between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. What will happen when the Stevenage new town has been developed? Already, under the existing arrangements, the railways cannot cater for the traffic, and certainly some of the people who will live in Stevenage will want to come to work in London.
May I deal, too, with a complaint from the Letchworth Manufacturers' Association about British Railways refusing acceptance of goods consigned to factories? That is a serious matter, with important production at stake. I understand that it may happen when services are dislocated, and I do not complain about that. What I complain about is that no warning whatever was given, so that there was no opportunity for these factories to make alternative arrangements to obtain their raw materials by road transport.
In my submission, all these things add up to just one word—and that is the word "inefficiency." This, after all, is the much-vaunted public monopoly in action, and it is not good enough. People are paying more and more for less and less. Like everything else under the Government, the cost of efficiency is going up, and yet we are still not getting efficiency.
Yet if we look at the Labour Party publication of February, 1950, entitled, "You and Tomorrow"—published by Transport House—we see on page 21, under a headline "Railways more Efficient":
Since they became a public enterprise punctuality has improved.
I hope we shall not have to read that sort of nonsense any more after tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that there will be a speedy improvement in the administration of these services and that we shall not have to endure next winter the chaos which we have had to endure this winter.
Fares and freight charges are going up; we understand that they are to go up still further. But the people of my constituency and I believe of the whole country are getting fed up with the rail-


way service, fed up with nationalisation and fed up with the Socialist Government.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) mentioned something about the Hitchin line and sleepers being used on that line. Well, could he imagine any line without sleepers.

Mr. Fisher: I am sorry to intervene so soon again, but the distance between King's Cross and Hitchin is 30 miles, and it should not be necessary to sleep on such a short run.

Mr. Harrison: I was trying to measure just how much the hon. Gentleman knew about railways, and I find he knows very little.

Mr. Fisher: One can use the word in two connotations. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows which is which?

Mr. Harrison: All the hon. Gentleman knows about railways is what he sees through 1st class carriage windows. The "Evening Standard" will probably refer him to wooden or concrete sleepers that the lines lie on. The other point he raised was the question of late trains. I do, with him, ask my right hon. Friend to give us the figures regarding the running of trains during the last three years. I did not bring them with me because there is no question of late running in this particular Bill, and we must rely on the Minister to tell us the figures, so that the hon. Gentleman can see how much improvement has been effected on the lines in the last three years.

Mr. Fisher: Not in my constituency.

Mr. Harrison: I should like to take up something that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said. He said that, without any hesitation, without any feeling for tradition or anything else, we must be very determined in our closure of branch lines and other uneconomical sections of British Railways. I want to refer the hon. Gentleman to the continued demand from the Scots Conservative Members of this House—to their repeated and continuous demands—that large portions of the Scottish railways should be maintained.

whether economical or not, for social purposes. Believe me, there are substantial expenses involved by British Railways in running the necessary communications for social purposes.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? The demand we make in Scotland universally is for special consideration, especially in transport and especially in the North and West of Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: With subsidies?

Mr. Harrison: The point about keeping open uneconomical lines I appreciate and, to some extent, agree with. As for the point which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames made about lines for military purposes, that, of course, should be a question for the Service Ministers. In both these cases, however, there are substantial expenses that must be accepted by the British Transport Commission, if the Commission is to keep open those uneconomical portions of the lines. I agree that it is necessary, and I suggest also that some consideration financially must be given to that problem.
An hon. Gentleman opposite who knows quite a lot about railways questioned my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) regarding Work No. 5 specified in the Bill.

Mr. G. Wilson: I did not mention it.

Mr. Harrison: I did not say the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Wilson: As to Clause 5 in the Bill, I pointed out that that referred to the widening of existing bridges, which has nothing whatever to do with level crossings or with benefits to passengers in North-East London.

Mr. Harrison: If I had not read the Bill carefully I should have thought that. My purpose is to emphasise the explanation given by my hon. and learned Friend on the question the hon. Gentleman asked. Work No. 5 is for the purpose of widening an ordinary traffic bridge, a highway bridge—

Mr. Wilson: There is a Clause 5.

Mr. Harrison: —and the reason for widening the bridge is for the purpose of putting some more railway lines under it, thereby increasing the rail facilities.


So the hon. Gentleman can see that there is something in what my hon. and learned Friend said about improving the rail facilities at this particular point.
With the permission of the House, I should like now to come to the Bill. I do not know whether it would be out of order or not. I would make the preliminary observation that we have listened to quite a number of the legal profession on railway matters now. I would suggest to the legal profession that they may know a lot about the law but that they do not know much about railways. I hope that they will not take that remark too hardly.
I want to mention that part of the Bill dealing with my own particular constituency and the railway facilities around Nottingham. In the first place, I compliment the British Transport Commission on putting forward these proposals for the improvement of rail facilities in and around Nottingham, because we were in this position not so long ago that we could not remove from the collieries all the coal that was being mined. The rail facilities, owing to bad weather, were unable to cope with the production of the local pits, and these works in and around Nottingham are for the purpose of opening a branch line to—[An HON. MEMBER; "To Hitchin."] Not to Hitchin, but a branch line to one of the most important collieries in that particular district, which will facilitate considerably the handling of coal traffics in that particular district, we were in this position during the big freeze-up.
The rail operators in the colliery districts fear one thing above all others, and that is not being able to keep a colliery provided with the necessary empty wagons. In these days when coal is absolutely essential, it is a nightmare for any rail operator to be in the position that he cannot supply empty wagons to the coal pits to keep those pits working. We experienced that difficulty during the big freeze-up, and had to develop very quickly what are called land sale facilities to load lorries. These works between Radford and Nottingham, and between Radford and Sherwin Road, Nottingham, are designed to provide extra facilities, and to give a guarantee that, no matter what the weather may be, rail operators can keep the pits working by providing

them with empty wagons. Not only are these facilities designed to assist coal traffic, but they are also designed to help in providing extra facilities for general traffic.
I now wish to make one or two general observations, because I have been tempted to do so by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He said that, from the point of view of operating on a financial basis without loss, railway operations would be confined to three distinct types of traffic, namely, heavy minerals, long-distance passenger traffic, and the suburban traffic around the big cities.

Mr. McAdden: My hon. Friend did not say anything of the kind. He is not here, and on his behalf I should like to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Even my hon. Friend, who opened the debate, must take some refreshment sometimes. Sometimes I wish hon. Members opposite would not take so much.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the remark made by the hon. Gentleman that he wished hon. Members on this side of the House did not take so much?

Mr. McAdden: May I say exactly what I did say? I was interrupted by an observation from hon. Gentlemen opposite asking where was my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and I pointed out that he had gone to take some refreshment. I thought that, too, was objected to, and I said that I wished sometimes hon. Members opposite would not take so much refreshment. I cannot see anything to take offence at, unless some people are too selective in their refreshment.

Mr. Snow: May I point out that
It wasn't the words
Which frightened the birds
But the horrible double entendre.

Mr. McAdden: May I now get back to the point? I was about to remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), that my hon. Friend did say that the forms of traffic to which the hon. Member referred were the three most remunerative forms of traffic, but he did not say that they were the sole forms of traffic.

Mr. Harrison: What I understood him to say was that these three forms of traffic were the only forms of traffic British Railways could work without losing money.

Mr. McAdden: He did not say that.

Mr. Harrison: I am convinced that British Railways, given a fair chance of making good some of the devastation caused by the war and the shortage of equipment since the war, could operate without losing money. I make that point very strongly.
I wish to refute completely the suggestion lying behind all the criticism of British Railways by hon. Members opposite that there is a psychological reason why British railwaymen of all grades cannot adjust themselves to preparing plans and working British Railways efficiently. British Railways can be worked efficiently, and there is among the staff the will to work them in such a manner. That is one of the things not recognised by the Opposition when they so lightly criticise this great undertaking.
From the contributions made by hon. Members opposite on this Bill, and in debates on the railways in general, one would deduce that British Railways are doing worse now, in both time-keeping and general operating, than ever before in their existence. Anyone who understands anything about the railways and who looks at the facts and figures concerning railway operations knows that in the last three or four years there has been a more substantial improvement in railway operations than in any other three or four years in the history of the railways. Because of that, because of the improvements we have been able to make, because of the- operation and the expense involved in the works envisaged in this Bill, which mean that British Railway operators will be provided with the technical equipment to do their job properly, and because of the efforts that have been made over the last four years, everybody connected with British Transport, and the general public as well, can congratulate railway operators on the success they have made of the job in the last two or three years.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I am grateful for this opportunity of intervening, if only for a few moments, in this

debate. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) too closely, except to remark that he must not say that the desire to see British Railways running efficiently is confined to his side of the House. Everybody here who has the interest of the country at heart—and I hope that that is no* confined to any one side—is interested in seeing British Railways as an efficient and going concern, able to carry traffic in the cheapest possible and most economical way. But we are surely entitled to make criticisms, where we think they are necessary, of the way in which British Railways are now being conducted.
I notice that, this is a Bill to confer further powers on the Commission, and from what has happened so far I gather it is not altogether inappropriate to make some comment on how the powers they already possess are being used. We are told by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, that the trains are not now losing so much time as they once did, and he was hoping, I believe a little optimistically, that the Minister would, in reply, be able to produce figures to show that that was so. I do not doubt that he will be able to prove it. If a very large number of trains are stopped from running at all it seems fairly reasonable to believe that the amount of time which they might have lost if they had run will make a considerable difference to the figures.

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Member take a period previous to the cutting down of the number of trains, and judge from that?

Mr. McAdden: We shall see these figures when they are produced. I am speaking, from my own knowledge, only of the line on which I travel, and on which the time-keeping is simply deplorable.

Mr. Bing: Is not the hon. Gentleman speaking of the Liverpool Street-Shenfield-Southend line, and does he not agree that the time-keeping on that line is the best in the world?

Mr. McAdden: The hon. and learned Member made his speech, and when he sat down he was obviously very pleased with what he had been saying. Will he permit me now to continue with my own speech? Moreover, I was not talking


about the Liverpool Street-Shenfield-Southend line because I travel on the Fenchurch Street-Shoeburyness line on which, I feel, I know a considerable amount more than does the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). When he spoke, he would have had us believe that things have been considerably improved since the line has come under the control of the British Transport Commission. He rather led the House to believe not only that a great step forward is being taken—I agree that it is—but that prior to it, in the years before the war, there was so much argument going on among the railway operators on this section of the line that no progress was possible. It is not true. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and if he does not know let him find out, that it was not in such a chaotic state as he imagines it was. The journey was undertaken in a shorter time and at a cheaper price, and the trains ran more punctually than they do now.

Mr. Monslow: The hon. Gentleman says that there were cheaper fares. Will he try to indicate to the House the improvement that has taken place in the standard of railwaymen's wages.

Mr. McAdden: I am prepared to do that on some other occasion and to show the comparative value of railwaymen's wages today, at today's prices.

Mr. Gunter: Is it not a fact that a quarter of a century ago the constituency which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), represents with such distinction, made representations and asked the railway whether they could possibly electrify the line?

Mr. McAdden: The hon. Member does not need to remind me of that. He does not live in my division, but he lives near enough to it to make his company interesting. He knows that in this section of the line we have had repeated promises, not only from the Transport Commission but from the earlier operators, that the line would become electrified. My objection to the Bill is that there is no indication that the Minister will be able to tackle that problem in the only way in which the earlier operators and the hon. Gentleman himself agreed it can be done, by having a

double track instead of the single track which we have at the moment.
I am certain that the Commission will not get down to understanding how the railway services should be organised until they take into their confidence the people who have to travel upon the railways. I put a Question to the Minister earlier this week upon this subject, and I confess that there is considerable disquiet on the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) will confirm, if they will talk a little with those who travel on the line, that there is disquiet at the way in which the travelling public on this section have been lumped into the territory known as "East Anglia," of which they are not a part, and because those who travel on the line have no voice about the way in which the line is conducted. That is true not merely of the Southend line but of many other places. It is a fundamental duty of the Minister to see that those who travel on the railway have some voice in the conduct of the section of the line which they use.
I am not suggesting that every five miles of railway line should have its own representative; what I am suggesting is that there ought to be a fairer representation than there is at the moment. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair to me when he tried to convey to us that there was a representative of the Southend Corporation on the Consultative Council. That is not true. There is a representative on the Consultative Council of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who, incidentally, happens to be a member of the Southend Council; but he does not travel upon the line, is not a regular traveller, and is not in the position to speak on this matter as are the hon. Member for Doncaster and myself, who are regular travellers on the line and know something about it.
I should not like it to be thought that I am suggesting that the Minister should appoint the hon. Member for Doncaster, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch or myself as representatives on the Consultative Council. There are many capable people who are willing to serve and have the time to devote to the task. Before the Transport Commission go in for any schemes of improvement—I want


them to go in for many—and seek to take to themselves any powers greater than the very great powers which they have, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should draw into the Consultative Councils, whose duty it is to advise the Transport Commission on the interests of the travelling public, people who are really representative and who actually travel upon the railways or are concerned with the carriage of freight upon the railways, and not ignore entirely, as seems to be the case, the views of those without whose patronage the railways will never become a paying proposition. The whole attitude of the Transport Commission in recent months has been to drive the travelling public to other means of transport, and that is not the way to save British Railways.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) described the state of railway finances as catastrophic. Although he did not say so in specific terms, I presume the inference was that that was due to public ownership or nationalisation. I would remind him and the House once again that the chaotic state of railway finances is a legacy which the British Transport Commission finds very embarrassing today and it dates back some years. We need not go further back than 1935, when the Government of the day raised a loan of over £20 million for the four main-line groups and £39 million for London Transport, and let them have it at 2½per cent. so that they could put their houses in order. Within three years, an independent transport tribunal advised the Government that, unless something was done to help the railways, the railway transport of the country would be absolutely chaotic.
A very interesting thing happened between 1935 and 1938. Eminent men in the railway world came to a conclusion about public transport. I find that the late Lord Stamp, speaking at the annual meeting of the L.M.S. Company said:
We must now renew our efforts to secure the highly necessary co-ordination of road and rail function in the public interest.
A little later in the year Sir Alfred Read, Chairman of Coast Lines, Limited, said:
I look forward to a complete re-organisation in the very near future of all forms of

internal transport. It is of vital importance that they should be so organised and controlled that the best possible service shall be available for our merchants and traders at reasonable and fair remuneration, good service at economic rates being essential. Traffic should flow through its most normal route and all unnecessary wasteful competition eliminated.
The last authority I would quote is the then chairman of the L.N.E.R., Mr. William Whitelaw. He advocated the State purchase of the railways and the setting up by the Government of a body to control both road and rail traffic:
I have also no doubt that eventual State ownership is inevitable. There has never been a time"—
this was in 1937—
when there has been greater need for a general reconsideration of the whole transport problem. This, as it affects both rail and road, must be regarded not in piecemeal fashion, but as a great national responsibility.
Neither of those gentlemen is a Socialist, and they were approaching the transport problem from an economic and industrial point of view, without any political complexion.
The Lord President of the Council, in an entirely different capacity, wrote a book in 1933 in which he referred to the need for co-ordinated transport. And he wrote in prophetic vein, as I find on page 98:
At every step in the process of coordination and reconstruction under private ownership there would be a row—newspaper campaigns, petitions, protest meetings, pressure on Members of Parliament, questions to the Minister and the Traffic Commissioners, and all kinds of attempts to squeeze him and the Traffic Commissioners and to warp his or their judgment.
That prophecy has been amply fulfilled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There has been pressure in public meetings and all kinds of agitation.
What are the difficulties confronting the Railway Executive? The fact of the matter, as the railway unions told the representatives of the Railway Executive in the recent discussions, is that the British Transport Commission and this House are imposing upon the Railway Executive an impossible task in expecting them to restore the finances of the Railway Executive to a healthy condition without giving them reasonable opportunities of competition. The aim and purpose of the Transport Act is to make the road and rail services complementary to


each other and not competitive; and we shall not have a prosperous transport industry in this country until that purpose has been achieved. In the meanwhile, something must be done with regard to the basis of competition and the financial structure of the industry.
May I, without any bitterness, put this point to hon. Members opposite: on account of the slow machinery that the Railway Executive have to follow and because they cannot get their rates varied without public approval, at the moment the increase as far as freights are concerned is not more than 81 per cent. and the extreme increase, as far as passenger traffic is concerned, is 75 per cent. But the over-all average of the increased costs that the Railway Executive have to pay amounts to at least 125 per cent.
When the Court of Inquiry was sitting, the Railway Executive tried to prevail upon us to modify or withdraw our claims because of their financial burden. Taking August, 1939, and the figure of 100 as the basis, the following comparisons were made. At December, 1950, steel rails were 216, pig iron 225, iron bars 220, steel bars 212, brass bars 460, copper tubes 278, timber for sleepers 416, general timber 363, etc. Is there a businessman sitting on the benches opposite who could make a profit out of his business if he were allowed to increase his pre-war charges by only 81 per cent. while having to pay an average of 125 for all the material he used? I think that would be beyond the business capacity of the cleverest hon. Member opposite.
The Minister may join issue with me here, but if he wants the railways to become prosperous again, if he wants to give the railway employees every consideration, he must not expect us to carry the whole burden of £36 million per annum interest for the stockholders. [Interruption.] Let me emphasise once again that we are not suggesting that that interest ought not to be paid; it is an honourable undertaking and it should be paid, and we have agreed to the Government paying it. It is true that the Government assessed the figure, and in my view it is not an unreasonable figure. The unreasonable aspect is to expect the men in the railway industry to find the whole of it in view of the fact that conditions are imposed upon them which make it impossible for them to get the traffic and to carry it at a reasonable rate.
It is because so much reconstruction has to be done that the railways are in difficulties. This is not a mad-brained idea of the Socialists. Hon. Members who are readers and supporters of the "Observer" will recall that in the issue of 25th February this newspaper commented as follows:
Yet hardly a railway in the world is making a profit out of its traffic receipts. Why should we expect British Railways to be an exception? Moreover, railways have never in fact been treated by the law as a quite ordinary business. Their charges have been regulated; they have been required to assume various unremunerative obligations for the benefit of the community. Would it not be more realistic to regard them as an essential national asset and to conclude that the irreplaceable services which they perform should be in part paid for, not by their customers, but by the State?
That was the point of view of the leader writer in the "Observer," and I do not think anybody will accuse him of being a Socialist.
The restraint revealed by railwaymen during the last 12 months ought to have the commendation of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because, instead of paralysing trade and traffic, they have submitted concrete proposals both to the Executive and to the Transport Commission as to how they can put their finances in order. If Lord Stamp, Sir Alfred Read and Mr. William Whitelaw were right when they came to the conclusion in 1937 that co-ordination must be made effective, and in feeling that receipts ought to be pooled and a general treatment applied, all this is more than doubly true today.
The railways are still the backbone of our transport. In fact, they are the artery of our economic life. To treat them indifferently and to treat them, as did the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher), flippantly, is an insult to the intelligence of those employed in the industry. I should like to make a comment about road transport services. One would imagine that in the last three years nothing had been done—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to keep off road transport, which is outside the scope of the debate.

Mr. Morris: I wanted only to point out that something definite had been done in the way of co-ordination and integration, but I bow to your Ruling,


Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and conclude by saying that there must be a new and proper approach to the financial structure of the railway industry. When the new charges are brought into operation, when co-ordination and integrated schemes are implemented and when the railways have been given a chance under the new management to make up for the neglect and arrears of past years, they will once more be a profitable industry.
Now that the railwaymen have been given very much overdue justice, they may be encouraged to lend the Government a helping hand with a view to bringing traffic to the rails and to putting the appropriate traffic on the roads, in that way helping to give Great Britain a coordinated and integrated transport system. It is because of the failure to do this hitherto that we have been in difficulties in the past six months. I ask the House to recognise the urgency of helping the British Transport Commission, the Minister and the Railway Executive to bring about a dovetailed schema whereby appropriate traffic is taken on the roads and appropriate traffic is given to the railways. With that co-ordinated system, we yet hope to have the finest transport system in the world.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Molson: We have just had from the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), what is I think the most serious speech against this Bill which we have heard tonight. I hope my hon. Friends will not take it amiss when I say that he has now dealt in broad and comprehensive lines with the whole financial structure of the railways of this country. He has advanced arguments based upon respectable authority, authority that must carry great weight on these benches—the chairmen of the railways before they were nationalised—all of which lead to the conclusion that unless and until a great integration of our whole transport system is carried out, the finances of the railways will remain unsound.

Mr. Manuel: They always were.

Mr. Molson: Perhaps they always were, but what we are concerned with at the moment is this Bill, in which the British Transport Commission are seek-

ing authority to invest large sums in the railways. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West. It was a most impressive speech and it referred to the need for the most drastic re-organisation of our transport system, re-organisation which has not yet been carried out. The Minister of Transport has come to the House this evening to ask that the House shall authorise the Transport Commission to invest large additional sums in a form of transport service in connection with which, according to the hon. Gentleman, with the support of a large number of those most intimately connected with the railways seated on the benches opposite it will be impossible for the Railway Executive to meet its financial liabilities.
What, to my mind, requires a very clear and definite answer from the Minister of Transport is how he expects the Transport Commission, and the Railway Executive in particular, are to be able to pay interest and sinking fund upon the money they are proposing to invest. I am quite confident that the Minister of Transport, when he replies, will pay due and proper attention to the weighty speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, and will explain what are the intentions of the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out, it is many months ago since the Minister of Transport warned the House of the extremely 'unsatisfactory position of the railways. Since then we have had a wage settlement and today there was announced in the newspapers a supplement which will add immensely to the expenditure. Both the Railway Executive and the Industrial Court were of the opinion that if fares were raised and freight rates were further increased the law of diminishing returns would begin to apply and these additional charges would not, in fact, enable the Exceutive to meet its liabilities.
We are fortunate in that although so many of the Ministers responsible for introducing nationalisation Bills have been transferred to other responsibilities since they piloted those Measures through the House, that does not yet apply to the Minister of Transport. He it was who, without any equivocation, said that it was not his intention and that it was not the intention of the Government that the


nationalised transport system of this country should depend upon a subsidy from the taxpayer. I am sure that had he thought that those undertakings which he gave at the time when he was piloting the legislation through the House would not be carried out he would resign his office.
So I hope that tonight, when the House of Commons has an opportunity of briefly surveying the whole administration of the railways—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I gather that Mr. Speaker has ruled that the debate could extend beyond the contents of the Bill but that it must remain related to its purposes, that is to say, the purposes as set out in the Bill. In my view, interpreting that Ruling as best I can, general administration is not a subject for debate on this Private Bill.

Mr. Molson: I must make a submission to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is a submission which has now been made three times and ruled upon—

Mr. Manuel: And will be ruled upon again.

Mr. Molson: —and will doubtless be ruled upon again. The frequent changes in the occupancy of the Chair do oblige one again to quote some authorities without, I hope, incurring the charge of repetition.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order.

Mr. Molson: I am addressing Mr. Deputy-Speaker on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was making a submission to me. Mr. Molson.

Mr. Molson: On 22nd February, 1949, on a Bill which Mr. Speaker tonight agreed was indistinguishable in principle from the one which is now under discussion, he ruled:
I should have thought that one could not challenge the decision of the House that the railways were to be nationalised, as that has been decided, but matters of fares, administration and everything else in this Bill would, I think be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1766.]
Further, when this point was again raised this afternoon, Mr. Speaker's Ruling was that matters could be discussed which, even though they were not in the Bill,

were germane to the purposes of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including fares."] Fares were already included in the Ruling given last year. In the Ruling given earlier tonight it was stated that one had to take into account the purposes of the Bill as well as what was actually contained in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know the Ruling very well. In my view the whole administration of the Transport Commission is not germane to the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Molson: With great respect, I did not mean to imply everything within the responsibility of the Transport Commission because the responsibility of supervision of the Commission extends to all transport, and your predecessors, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled that any reference to road transport would be out of order. But the general administration of the railways was, in the view of your predecessors, within the scope of the present debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that I am bound by the Ruling, which I must interpret as I think best. What I have said is, in my view, the correct interpretation.

Mr. Molson: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But you will appreciate that there has been today a further Ruling by Mr. Speaker which is not yet in print. It will be possible tomorrow morning for us to have a look at his Ruling, but, naturally, I defer to your interpretation of the Ruling that was given.
In the two or three remaining moments in which I hope to address the House I propose to put myself into the historic position of a Member of the House of Commons who, before supply is granted, is allowed to express the grievances of himself and his constituents. This Bill is proposing to extend the powers of the Railway Executive to invest in that service. I believe that, broadly speaking, the users of transport in this country are extremely dissatisfied with the services rendered by the railways. I have here a sheaf of complaints. I have written to the Railway Executive and my experience has been identical with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher). The reply to every complaint which one makes contains a sentence that, "the inconvenience experienced is re-


gretted." I have been very unfortunate. I complained about the unpunctuality of a train, which, until it was suspended owing to the insufficiency of coal, was the train on which the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), and I habitually travelled on Mondays to attend this House. I complained about the fact that it was regularly unpunctual. I had a lamp standard sent from London and it was broken. When it was replaced I had the replacement sent by road transport. I ordered some chicks to be sent last year. The first lot were sent the right way but the second were sent the wrong way, with the result that a number of them died. They were put on the wrong train at Southport—

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. Molson: No, I will not.
When I was informed that they had been mistakenly sent via Buxton instead of Uttoxeter I asked that steps should be taken to deal in a disciplinary manner with whoever was responsible for the mistake. But apparently that kind of thing does not happen now on the railways. The Railway Executive is frightened of an unofficial strike if action is taken against anyone guilty of negligence—

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member has given way, but I want to pin-point just where he is putting the responsibility for these delays about which he is talking. I want to know if he appreciates that the railway staff as a whole, and especially the footplate men are a good staff? There are many things contingent upon the running of our trains, such as bad coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and worn-out locomotives; yes, I would say that we did work during the war with the most awful coal. It was much worse that it is now. I think we should recognise that many of our locomotives are in a bad state and need renewing. As these are contributory causes of the delays the hon. Member should not throw all the blame on to the railway-men.

Mr. Molson: Mr. Molson rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will permit me to say so, those

two speeches precisely indicate the difficulty. There will be no limit to the debate if we continue in this way. It must be limited in some way. In my view, those details are not germane to the limited purposes of the Bill.

Mr. McCorquodale: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when at the start of this debate at seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker ventured to make that Ruling he was respectfully challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with what he said on the Bill in 1949. While he said that he did not wish the matter to be taken as a precedent for future Bills, he was prepared on this occasion to allow as wide a debate as possible.

Mr. Manuel: It is distinctly within my recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your predecessor in the Chair, when giving his last Ruling, finished with the words, "matters in the Bill."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is my view. The debate must be related to the purposes of the Bill but, nevertheless, it may go beyond the actual contents of the Bill.

Mr. Molson: I respectfully agree. At the same time I would point out that the complaint has frequently been made that, since the railways were nationalised, the opportunities for hon. Members to raise the grievances of their constituents are limited. They are excluded from putting Parliamentary Questions. The answer which has been given by the Government, I think with the concurrence of the Chair, is that there are periodical opportunities when the nationalised authority must come to the House to obtain authority for the investment of money, and that that, in accordance with the time-honoured tradition of the House, gives us an opportunity of raising grievances before we vote supply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If connected with the purposes of the Bill, I entirely agree.

Mr. Molson: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Therefore, I will not follow up the point which has been raised beyond saying that I am fully aware of all the deficiencies in the matter of locomotives, and so on, because those are generally given as the explanation of the unpunctuality of our trains. The


service in the sending of articles upon the railways continues to be exactly the same. Only at the end of December a bicycle was sent to my house with various other packages. Two of them arrived punctually; the rest did not. When I wrote and complained that I was charged the full price, all I got was a perfunctory reply from Mr. Pearson saying that the inconvenience occasioned was regrettable.
The Minister of Transport has, for the tranquillity of his own life, done well to have the Act nationalising transport drafted as it was; he has shuffled on to other people the responsibility that otherwise would have rested upon his shoulders. But when he asks us to authorise the expenditure of vast sums of money upon these railways, he is under an obligation to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West, who has clearly indicated tonight that the prospects of the further expenditure being covered by any earnings made by the railways are extremely remote.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I regret that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) so far digressed from the habitual courtesies of this House as not to enable me to say during the course of his speech what I propose to say now, and that is that the trains of this country are, as the Report of the British Transport Commission shows, not less punctual but more punctual than they were under private enterprise. I regret, too, and even more deeply, the attitude shown by the Tory Party towards nationalised industries. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen who come here to represent the people of this country might well be better occupied than in trying to crab the property of the people of this country and an asset which is essential to our national prosperity.
The subject-matter of this Bill consists of certain extensions and improvements proposed by the British Transport Commission, and I have taken the trouble to inform myself upon one of these improvements. If hon. Members opposite will do anything so revolutionary as to look at the terms of the Bill which they are opposing, they will find that the last of the improvements proposed in Clause 5 is the substitution of a new bridge for an old bridge in what are, in fact, the approaches to Hayling Island.
The old bridge, as I understand and as I am informed, is a wooden structure which was authorised in 1823 and no doubt built shortly afterwards. In many respects, it may be said to resemble the Tory Party. It has only a limited carrying capacity; that it is, in fact somewhere between six and seven tons. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are successful in their distinterested and public-spirited efforts to impede the national progress, the result will be that traffic will continue over this ancient, limited, wooden toll bridge, and if they think for one moment that any enterprise, public or private, can continue successfully on the condition of keeping what was made in quite different circumstances more than 100 years ago, and what is now obviously unfit for the work it has to do, then all I can say is that their much-vaunted business capacity is even more doubtful than I have long supposed it to be. Moreover, this is a toll bridge. I have not the least doubt that the Tory Party—

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know this particular bridge? A toll bridge is a toll bridge, and a railway bridge is one that does not charge a toll.

Mr. Snow: Before my hon. and learned Friend answers that question, may I inform him that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) did not know that this bridge was included in the Bill until I told him so?

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. I was informed that this was in the Bill, but I was not going to speak until the hon. and learned Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think I need wait, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, until you point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is just as obviously not a point of order as many observations that are put forward under that heading, but I should like to say that I do not understand what "knowing a bridge" is. What I do know are the facts about this bridge, and I am now trying to give them to the House. [Interruption.] I do not know how one can experience a bridge. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have some way of doing it, but perhaps he had better allow me to get on with the facts, which are really


more important than the question of how the hon. and gallant Gentleman "experiences" bridges in the Portsmouth West division.
The effect of refusing this Bill would be in respect of this item, as of others, to compel the railways of this country to continue with what are obviously effete plant, effete track, effete bridges, or whatever it may be, and to do to them what no reasonable Member of this House, wherever he sits in it, would for one moment think of doing if he were concerned with his own affairs.
Let us suppose that a house belonging to some hon. Member opposite were equipped with walls or with windows so obviously and hopelessly as out of date as a wooden bridge of limited capacity, built over 100 years ago. Are we really to suppose that that hon. Member would, for some reason or another, continue to think that his house was fit to live in? If he had to run a private enterprise, would he continue to do so with wholly effete plant and machinery for the purpose? Yet such is the blind political prejudice of the Tory Party in these matters that that which in no circumstances they would do for themselves, or allow their friends to do, they are content to come here and recommend to the country should be done, simply because the asset of the business with which they are at the moment concerned is a public one.
Is it the attitude of the Tory Party that what is folly and ineptitude in private business must therefore be inflicted by their decision and their policy on public business? Is that their measure of responsibility for the affairs of this country and the property of its citizens? It seems to me wholly lamentable that a responsible political party should seriously take that view.
What I rose to say tonight was simply this. If the Tory Party desire to keep or to get the confidence of this country, then may I give them this piece of advice? Let them accept the fact that the world does not stay where it is or where it was 50 years ago. Let them accept the fact that this country, like other countries in the world, is marching forward. Let them accept the fact that, just as the roads of this country are now obviously and admittedly public property, so, too, are

the railways. And let them, having accepted it, further accept—horrible though it may appear to them to be—the public responsibility of doing the best they can for a public asset. Let us hear a little bit less about the chickens which the hon. Member for The High Peak thinks were lost somewhere between Nottingham and London, and let us hear a little bit less about all the minor troubles which railways always have had, under private enterprise just as much as under public enterprise. Let them open their eyes a little and have a larger vision, both of what is being done and of what are their own responsibilities. in so far as they come here to represent the people of the country.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: This Bill, which seeks to extend the powers of investment of the British Transport Commission, provides a limited but timely opportunity to consider the sad plight of the railways, within the Ruling which Mr. Speaker has given. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who has sat so quietly and patiently throughout the whole of the debate is. I believe, glad of this opportunity, however much his hon. Friends behind him may have tried to bullyrag. We are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman come out of his hibernation so far as the railways are concerned, because, apart from answers to such Questions as can be put down to him, we have not heard a wise word from him—or any word, for that matter—since October last, when the 1949 accounts of the Commission were discussed.
It is most unfortunate that some hon. Members on both sides of the House, who wished to speak on this occasion, have not had the opportunity to do so; and perhaps that points to the fact that we should have more discussions of this kind with, if I may say so with all respect to the Chair, an even greater latitude in the scope of the discussion. Indeed, I think some of my hon. Friends feel that the sooner we have a full dress debate about the state of the railways the better it will be. There may be some chance then of relieving the anxiety which is felt in the country about the railway losses, about the waste of manpower and about the apparent incapability of the railways to handle even the traffic which they get.
Those of my hon. Friends, who have been called, have not repeated the old arguments against nationalisation. We accept it as a fact and we want to see the nationalisation of the railways working very much better than it is at the moment.

Mr. Monslow: Mr. Monslow rose—

Mr. Renton: I cannot give way at the moment. I am sure the Minister will wish to reply to some of the points which have already been raised and particularly to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), who spoke with the authority of a great union behind him. The hon. Member for Swansea, West, made it abundantly plain that he did not think the Commission were able to perform their obligations under the Transport Act. We want to know what the Minister thinks about that. It is most important. Does he intend to stand by the Commission's obligation to make their undertaking pay, taking one year with another, or does he intend to ask Parliament to amend the Transport Act—because those are the only alternatives? He has to make up his mind about it some time and, for the sake of the railways, the sooner the better.
Perhaps the Minister would wish to answer a point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), who said that some uneconomic lines must be kept open and, if necessary, must be subsidised. That is a very arguable point of view. Indeed, there is a very great deal to be said upon the question of uneconomic lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) came out very plainly and clearly with the suggestion that the time had come—he had been pressing for it long enough—for the Transport Commission to make up their minds about this matter.
But, of course, it has to be done with reasonable skill. It is no good having the sort of state of affairs which prevailed on the line from Helston to Gwinear in Cornwall. On that line, not a very long branch line, there was a train which ran to and fro with two passenger coaches and one goods van. There were very few passengers, so it was decided to cancel the train and provide a bus for the passengers. It was then discovered, however, that there was also some important goods

traffic—a daily load of £20 worth of rabbits and other articles. It was decided, after the bus had been put into service, to keep the train in operation for the carriage of goods. The bus passengers had the satisfaction of seeing the train tootle along beside them. but they were not allowed to travel in it. It is quite futile to provide a railway service and forbid people to use it. That is asking for financial disaster.
My hon. Friends have produced a mass of convincing evidence to show that the public are not getting either the service which was promised as a result of nationalisation or—which is perhaps more important—the service which the country must have for the purpose of its economy and of the re-armament programme. My hon. Friends have referred mainly to passenger traffic; but my information is that the state of affairs with regard to goods traffic in certain parts of the country is truly alarming. In South Wales and on lines serving the Port of London and the Channel ports there has been such congestion in recent weeks in goods depots and marshalling yards that the Railway Executive have had to place an embargo upon the further acceptance of goods and an embargo upon some forward movement of goods.
Obviously, the placing of embargoes seriously hampers not only trade and industry but also the various activities for which the Government are responsible, for example, coal production and housing. Some timber merchants in East Anglia sent pit props by sea to South Wales. They were landed at Milford Haven and were at once put into railway wagons. After they had been placed in the wagons and it was necessary to forward these pit props to the collieries, a railway embargo was placed upon them. Eventually, after some delay, the matter was taken up at a high level. I wonder whether hon. Members would care to exercise their imagination and consider how much coal production was lost in the meantime.
Then there is the really startling case of a firm of builders at Orpington, who were working on a municipal housing scheme. They urgently needed 25 tons of steel to be delivered from South Wales. That steel was also put on the rail and forwarding instructions were awaited; but then the rail embargo was applied and the firm were told they could not get


the steel within the time in which they needed it to prevent the housing project being held up. The Ministry of Health were approached.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether housing and the carriage of pit props come within the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I have just come into the Chair and I have not heard what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was saying. I do not quite know what the position is and I should like to hear the argument.

Mr. Renton: It may be of some service to you, Mr. Speaker, if I say that I was explaining that there is the most appalling congestion on the railways. I was giving examples of that congestion and its results, and I submit that that is material to the purpose of the Bill, bearing in mind that if the Bill is to relieve the situation on the railways at all we have to consider the nature of the problem.
If I may turn now to the example I was giving, the Ministry of Health said, "Yes, of course, you must have permission to carry these goods somehow." The firm concerned said, "We have our own C licence lorries, but to use them will cost more, because these lorries will have to go there empty. This kind of load normally would never be carried on the road. It is much cheaper to carry it by rail." The Ministry of Health said, "You must get these goods, because you must get the scheme completed." I think it cost £400 more to carry the goods in C licence vehicles, but, nevertheless, that was allowed. When there is an example of that kind, it is no wonder that hon. Members opposite worry themselves silly about the increase of C licence vehicles.
Then there is the question of congestion at the London goods centres. Hon. Members may have seen in the "Evening Standard" of, I think, last night—if not, the night before—that imports are piling up at the docks, and that a British Railways representative said:
Goods traffic from the Continent is being regulated. We know there is a hold up. There are many reasons for it. There is congestion at Bricklayers Arms, Old Kent Road, and Battersea and Blackfriars goods centres.

Candidly, I do not see much in the Bill about relieving that congestion at those centres. In any event, what is very doubtful is whether the congestion is due to anything but "disintegration"—the failure of the Transport Commission's policy for integrating the railways and other transport.
This matter is of such public importance that I feel that the Minister should this very night—I will give him time to do so—explain the extent of these embargoes on railway goods traffic—explain to us why the embargoes have been imposed and how soon the public may expect that they will be removed. I am surprised that he has not already made a statement in the House on those lines, and he certainly does owe it to us to make a statement about it tonight. There is no valid excuse for this state of affairs; and the strange thing is that the chaos is worse in South Wales and in the South-East of England, where there has been comparatively little snow this winter, than it is in the North, where there has been a great deal of snow.
On the question of economy of manpower—for there is no excuse that can be made on the ground that the railways are short of manpower—we have a statement by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. R. Mackay)—a statement that he made to a very large gathering of newspapermen in Paris in February. I have had this report checked, and I understand that the hon. Member does not dispute what he is reported to have said. I am sorry that I was not able to find him in the House tonight to tell him that I was going to make use of this. This is what he said:
There are 90,000 people at present employed on British Railways who are redundant. This is the policy"—
he added—
of full employment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The report has been checked.

Mr. Renton: That was the statement the hon. Member made, and his hon. Friends can take the matter up with him.
In spite of the fact that it was intended to place as much traffic as possible on the railways, and in spite of the fact that as much traffic as possible was placed


on the railways in the war to save road transport, in spite of the shortage of staff in the war, and in spite of the frequent bombing—the sometimes ceaseless bombing—in the war the goods were kept moving on the lines; and I certainly think they should be kept moving now.
I had a great deal to say about passenger traffic to add to what my hon. Friends have said; but I have been curtailed and I want to ask the Minister a question about the failure of the National Coal Board to produce enough coal, because this is a very important matter. Will he tell us this: How many men have been rendered unemployed as a result of the cuts in passenger train services? How many of them remain unemployed and on full pay? Obviously, they have not all got influenza. We do require some explanation about it. Would he also say whose decision it was that compelled the railways to reduce the amount of coal consumed? Was it imposed arbitrarily on the Railway Executive without any regard at all for railway economics, or—

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, instead of sitting on the Government Front Bench, is choosing to sit below the Gangway and to interrupt the hon. Gentleman while he is making his speech. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is improper for a member of the Government Front Bench to sit in some other part of the House, in order to curry favour with other hon. Members, and to interrupt the speech of another hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. From the bench where the Parliamentary Secretary is now sitting there are often interruptions directed across the Floor of the House, which I do not always hear. The other day I missed one which was very disorderly, and I wish I had heard it.

Mr. Blackburn: I should like to have it made quite plain that the interjection to which you are referring did not come from me.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that it did not come from the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise if I gave that impression.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): Further to that point of order. Is it quite clear that I am in order in sitting here if I want to?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can sit where he likes.

Mr. Renton: I was referring to the decision to reduce the amount of coal supplied to the railways. I suggest that it seems to have been imposed arbitrarily and without any regard at all to railways economics. Would the Minister enlighten us as to what was behind that decision, who made it and on precisely what grounds; and was the fact that the cutting of railway services would be certain to divert still more traffic to the roads overlooked or was it regretfully accepted?
There was much more that I hoped to say but I will conclude by saying this. Whatever frivolous attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite may take, the country generally is alarmed about the railways—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite have been in Parliament long enough to know that no national problem is improved by discussion being suppressed in this House. The country is alarmed about the financial position of the railways, which is steadily getting worse—

Mrs. Braddock: That is because of the compensation paid.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: That is the Communist argument.

Mr. Renton: —and about the declining efficiency of the railways, which we trust is only temporary. I am quite sure that even the most indoctrinated and hardbitten Socialist feels in his own heart that the hopes he had in nationalisation have not been fulfilled. As for integration, well, the distant smell of it was enough for the men who went on strike at St. Pancras Station; they were quite clearly allergic to integration. This evening we have given the Minister a chance to emerge from his hibernation to tell us what he, as a responsible member of the Government, proposes to do, and we expect a reply from him.

9.44 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The first thing I should like to do is to remind the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and his hon.


Friends that every work proposal in this Bill is designed to have some substantial and beneficial result. It seeks either to serve the travelling community, or to serve industry, or to meet the wishes of local authorities in regard to transport for important towns with which they and their populations are directly connected. I hope hon. Gentlemen will keep that in mind, and will not, however much they may desire to criticise British railways, in any way interfere with a programme of this kind—a constructive programme which will bring economic advantage.
Let me refer to two of the many points raised, and say that in my view they are not based on substantial knowledge and information. Take the point about embargoes. Nobody disputes that they have had to be placed on the handling of certain traffic recently and nobody should fail to appreciate what the reasons have been. In industrial negotiations, when tempers were raised, it is common knowledge that in certain centres the railway staff went slow or went on strike. That produced a blockage of goods and a dislocation of wagon movement. It led to the imposition of traffic embargoes.
Before hon. Gentlemen pursue that argument too far, may I remind them of the early experience I had at the Ministry of Transport after the war? There were long periods in the early winter of embargoes, particularly on the freight lines and on the London and North-Eastern line, because the rolling stock and wagon facilities were not sufficient to enable the traffic to be handled, sometimes for weeks on end. I did not hear hon. Members opposite raise that matter on the Floor of the House of Commons as they have raised it tonight.
One of the most remarkable and immediate advantages of nationalisation in the pooling of the wagons and rolling stock of the four main-line railways was, that almost immediately the Railway Executive got into the saddle, it enabled them to remove those embargoes. In the first three years of British Transport there has been very little in the way of embargoes on freight traffic until we got into the present situation. At the moment the situation is being rapidly remedied and I do not think it will remain for very much longer, according to my information.
The only other point to which I want to refer is with regard to some statement said to have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. R. Mackay). I am not in a position to know whether that statement was correctly reported or whether my hon. Friend has withdrawn it, but now that the statement has been referred to, it is incumbent upon me to say that it is not correct to say that 90,000 people are being retained in the employment of British Railways merely for the purpose of saying that they are fully employed.

Mr. Harrison: May I point out that the hon. Member for Reading, North, has withdrawn that statement?

Mr. Barnes: As I say, I have no knowledge of that, but it has been quoted on the Floor of the House and it is only right that I should immediately repudiate that statement from whatever sources it comes. because it is not true. A lot of statements have been made to the effect that there is redundancy of staff on British Railways. No one would take up the position that there is not redundancy of staff, but it depends on how we look at the matter. I would remind all hon. Members that from 1st January, 1948, to the end of 1950, the staff of British Railways has been reduced by some 50,000 persons. That represents a steady decline.
It is linked with the point which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised in his opening remarks, whether British Railways are following a policy of consistent economy. No one has endeavoured to evade that issue. Certainly I would not in my own public statements. A good deal of close examination must take place in regard to the railways to ensure that only those services that are necessary to serve the travelling community or the freight needs of the country are maintained.
The Railway Executive have steadily followed that policy. They have closed line after line which had not a sufficiently steady and continuous traffic to justify fresh capital expenditure upon it. My experience has been that directly the Railway Executive propose to close any redundant line, more often than not the first pressure that I receive is from Members of Parliament representing the locality who object to the line being


closed. I am not permitted to refer to the matter tonight, but the extent to which the Railway Executive have pursued this policy is linked with how far the House and the public are prepared to proceed along the lines of integrating rail and road transport in freight and passenger traffic.
On an occasion like this, hon. Members often make the wildest accusations against the railway administration, and yet in other directions they oppose every process which would enable this policy to be carried out effectively. On Bills of this kind it would be far better if the House utilised its time in discussing and bringing out as far as it can some of the basic conditions involved.
I want in the limited time at my disposal to give one illustration. One of the proposals in the Bill is to carry out the preparatory work for the electrification of the Southend line. At the moment I am not in a position to give a timetable for that to be carried through. The railways have been governed by the most severe restrictions on capital expenditure, and that throws upon the Railway Executive the necessity carefully to determine orders of priority. In dealing with a matter of this kind it does not matter whether the Railway Executive happen to be a public body or a board of directors; if their capital expenditure is limited, they must carefully determine their orders of priority. When the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames suggested that the whole of these works should be scrapped—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I suggested nothing of the sort.

Mr. Barnes: If that is the case, I withdraw the comment. I am glad that my statement has immediately produced that denial. Apparently erroneously, I drew the conclusion that the hon. Member was suggesting that the programme should be scrapped because of the financial plight of British Railways—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—

Mr. Barnes: All right. I have withdrawn it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but what I clearly recollect saying was that, before these proposals could be justified, the House must be satisfied that they are brought forward

on a sound financial basis. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pass to that part of the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I should have thought that my statement that severe capital expenditure restrictions are imposed on British Railways justifies that.
I want now to give an illustration with regard to one of the major proposals, namely, the electrification of the Southend line. I want to illustrate this, not by theory or by partisanship, but by means of the facts of a previous experience. The only other electrification of a suburban line undertaken since the war was that of the Liverpool Street—Shenfield line. That represented one of the most out-of-date stretches of suburban line that we had in the country. All the criticisms about out-of-date railway stock and filthy coaches applied on that stretch of line. What is more important, that line paralleled the main road all the way from Shenfield and Romford up to Aldgate. The traffic left that suburban line for the road, and all the way through to London the road carried some of the heaviest traffic and was almost impassable.
What happened when that line was electrified? The loaded coach train mileage went up by 33 per cent., passenger journeys increased by 49 per cent. and passenger receipts increased by 42 per cent. All these services are run by British transport. The road services are theirs, the Green Line coaches are theirs. So here is an instance where the railways won back from the roads 42 per cent. increased traffic.
The value of that to a Minister in my position, facing problems of road reconstruction, road congestion and road accidents, is that, by the expenditure of £8 million to modernise that stretch of surburban line, we have not only won back the position of the railways but have entered upon the solution of other consequential problems. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would have happened anyway."] If we had attempted to serve that 42 per cent. of passengers with buses on the roads by an expenditure of public funds to reconstruct that main road, it would have cost tens of millions as against the £8 million spent on the electrification of the railway line. Right through from London down to Southend there has been an immense industrial development and a large movement of the population.
I have no time tonight to cover many of the details mentioned by hon. Members, and certainly I cannot deal with the large matters of policy involved, but I want to say here that I do not take a pessimistic view of the railways of this country. The railways of this country, when they were under private enterprise, compared favourably with railways generally throughout the world. I say also that the railways of this country under public enterprise compare favourably with railways generally throughout the world and, if they are given a chance, they will do a good job.

9.58 p.m.

Sir R. Glyn: May I say, in the few minutes that are left, that I feel the right hon. Gentleman might have said one thing which he omitted, though much has been said about the L.M.S. In the old days practically the whole of the scheme in Schedule 16 was refused by this House 10 years ago. Had this House been more forthcoming then in helping the railways to meet the public need, we should have been in a very different position now.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Postponed Proceeding on consideration of Bill, as amended, resumed.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 18, leave out "fourteen."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Question again proposed, "That 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."

9.59 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before we were interrupted, the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) moved an Amendment, the effect of which would be to leave Section 14 of the old Act—if I may refer to it in that way—still in the Bill. I understood from him that the reason why he moved the Amendment was because he wanted to retain a position by which the Corporation would be able to build up a reserve fund. He referred to what is said in paragraph 35 of the White Paper.
I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that in

that statement the Corporation were putting forward the original plan, that that plan was to be financed out of the balance remaining at the end from their borrowing powers, and that in that way they would put £1 million to contingencies. But the new plan is to be financed out of Votes, and it was thought, therefore, unnecessary to retain Section 14 which makes provision for contingencies. The Corporation now have no power to borrow from the Consolidated Fund or in any other way. All that is required is that the difference between their expenditure and revenue will have to be met by Votes from the House.
If, therefore, we need any contingencies for a Reserve or Contingencies Fund, whatever the amount, we would have to vote in the House an annual sum which was provided in the Estimates. Because we have put the matter entirely on this new basis, we think it is unnecessary and rather undesirable and untidy to have a reserve fund of this kind. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at paragraph 17 of the White Paper he will see that the estimated cost of the scheme—£6 million—does not allow for contingencies. That sum is an estimate of the balance that, we think, will have to be met when we come to balance revenue and expenditure.
In our view, since we are now putting the matter upon the Vote, and as all that is required by the Corporation to finance the new scheme will be met out of annual Votes by Parliament. it would not he appropriate to retain this provision. That is why we have deleted it. I hope that with this explanation the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: If I have the permission of the House, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I quite see his argument that the new method of financing through the Votes does make a difference. But quite often there are annual Votes which are not completely expended in a given year, and the balance is left at the disposal of the Minister or whoever it may be. For example, things like the Government hospitality fund are provided by grants each year but the unexpended portion accumulates, and in this case I think it is used to buy stocks, and so on. That


was the kind of thing I had in mind, but it may be that that could be done by the form of the Estimate rather than by setting up a specific reserve at this stage. Therefore, I would not think it necessary to ask my hon. Friends to press the Amendment.
I would not have risen had not the right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 17 of the White Paper, where it is said that according to the information of the Government, in the seven-year period the cost would be of the order of £6 million without allowing for contingencies or any bush clearing after 1954. The House was a little noisy at the time, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that that was without allowing for contingencies; in other words, that the Government did not mean to have a reserve fund.
I should not have thought that that was what the right hon. Gentleman intended to mean, and I should have thought that "without allowing for contingencies" meant that there might be emergencies which could not be forecast, as there have been ever since the scheme started, and which would bring the total beyond the original £6 million. I should have thought that a reading of the words "without allowing for contingencies" meant just that and nothing to do with the decision not to have a reserve fund.
However, it is not a point of any great substance, except in the clear understanding of the English language as interpreted by a Welshman. We do not find it necessary, at this stage, to press for a reserve fund in view of the new financing. As I said on an earlier Amendment, we shall wait and see how the new form of Estimates, as outlined earlier, works out in practice. On whatever side of the House they may sit, hon. Members must reserve to themselves at all times the control of the form of the Estimates. While, for the first year, we are prepared to accept the outline which the right hon. Gentleman has given to us, perhaps later, as a result of experience, we may find that there has to be running over more than one year some form of a reserve fund. After all, the organisation is to be a trading body to some extent and it may very well need to have a reserve fund. But I quite see the point which.the right hon. Gentleman has made, and

if the House so desires, I will not press the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4.—(PROVISIONS AS TO THE QUEENSLAND CORPORATION.)

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "Corporation" to insert:
under the Queensland Act including those
The Amendment in my name on the Order Paper, in page 3, line 26, to leave out "in respect of," and to insert:
under the Queensland Act including
does not quite do what I desire to do and I have made a manuscript alteration about which I have had a word with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.
The first part of subsection (1) would thus read:
As from the commencement of this Act there shall be transferred to the Minister of Food all rights of the Overseas Food Corporation under the Queensland Act including those in respect of advances made by that Corporation to the Queensland Corporation.
Clause 4 (1), as drafted, did not quite clear up the position of the rights of the Overseas Food Corporation and their transfer to the Minister of Food because that subsection only transferred to the Minister of Food the rights of the Overseas Food Corporation in respect of advances made by that Corporation and to the Queensland Corporation.
As I indicated on the Committee stage, under the Queensland Act there are a good many rights vested in the Overseas Food Corporation. There are various points which are not in Part V of the Queensland Act, which deals alone with the question of advances, and it seems to me that to tidy up the point it is right that we should indicate that we desire to transfer to the Minister of Food all the rights now in the Overseas Food Corporation in respect of the Queensland scheme.
If accepted, the Amendment would indicate quite clearly the intention of the House that there shall be transferred to the Minister all the rights now invested in the Overseas Food Corporation. This is only a drafting matter, but I submit that we should make quite clear what is the intention of the House. It may be that the Queensland Government may


also have to take steps to deal with the matter, but at the moment it seems to me that the wording of the Clause as it stands is defective.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would point out that as the Bill stands it appears that the financial liabilities are being carried by the Government but not the rights of control, such as the appointment of members to the Queensland board, which at present are exercised by the Overseas Food Corporation and this would make the point quite clear. I welcome the arrival of the Solicitor-General at this late stage in the liquidation proceedings, and the fact that his legal advice is at last available to the Government.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): It is perfectly correct, as the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) who seconded it, have pointed out, that certain rights are vested in the Overseas Food Corporation under the Queensland Act. The objection, however, to making the Amendment which they propose is that it would not be operative in view of Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster.
If the Amendment were made, if, in other words, our Imperial Act purported to transfer rights conferred upon the Corporation under the Queensland Act, it would be purporting to amend Queensland legislation. Hon. Members know that, by Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster:
No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
The effect of Section 4 would be that any attempt by the Imperial Legislature to alter the legislation of the Queensland Parliament would be ineffective. It is for that reason that we did not incorporate in our draft the words which by this Amendment it is proposed to insert.
I quite agree that, that being so, it is necessary that there should be some amendment of the Queensland legislation in order to transfer in Queensland the

rights which the Queensland legislation vested in the Overseas Food Corporation. I am in a position to tell the House that that amending legislation will be introduced, and that, therefore, when it has been introduced the necessary transfer will have been effected, and all the rights of the Overseas Food Corporation will have been duly transferred. If hon. Members then ask whether we have not by our draft in its present form already infringed the principle which I have been endeavouring to enunciate the answer is that that is not the case. The draft at present transfers any debts owed by the Queensland Corporation to the Overseas Food Corporation if and in so far as they can be said to be situate in this country.
Our Parliament can transfer property in this country and it can transfer debts in so far as they can be said to be situate in this country. It is not always easy as a matter of law to say whether a debt is situate here or abroad, but if and in so far as it is situate here our wording is effective to transfer it. We have supplemented the wording which extends to the semi-colon in subsection (1) by a further provision that the Overseas Food Corporation shall take all steps in its power to see that full effect is given to the transfer. Therefore, the result is that, with the wording we have used plus the amending legislation of the Queensland Legislature, the necessary transfer of all rights vested in the Overseas Food Corporation will be effected.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is it not a fact that, as the Clause is at present drafted, it relates only to the transfer of rights in respect of advances; and, therefore, all these other rights are apparently to be transferred by virtue of an enactment of the Queensland Legislature without this Parliament having anything whatever to say about the matter? Is that entirely satisfactory?

The Solicitor-General: It is so because we can transfer only debts situate here. That is why we have had to limit the wording to advances made by the Overseas Food Corporation which have given rise to debts which may be situate in this country. It is only in respect of those debts that we can operate.

Captain Crookshank: I am much indebted to the Solicitor-General for coming here and giving us his most interesting


speech about the constitutional position. It is very interesting because it is the first time anything of this kind has been attempted. I referred to that when we were dealing with this Clause in Committee. In this novel constitutional position we have to go a little carefully so as not to transgress anything that emerges from the Statute of Westminster. I quite accept all that.
The point about which I was not quite clear was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to get over this difficulty, said that all we can deal with in this Bill are debts which are situate here; but he did all the time refer to debts which might be situate here. What I want to know is, whether it is certain that these debts are situate here; because the position is, for better or worse, that up to date the taxpayers of this country have advanced £1¼million as the British contribution towards the Queensland experiment. Those figures are in the annual report, and there is no dubiety about that; but from the use of the words "may be" instead of "is" about these debts, I am not clear whether we are going to take the view that they are situate here and whether, therefore, we are legislating in this Clause to make it possible for the whole of that money to be returned in due course—obviously not all at once—to the Minister of Food, to our advantage.

10.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: If I may have the permission of the House to speak again, I would say that I did advisedly use the words "may be situate" for this reason, that the principles of law which decide where a debt is situate are far from clear and it cannot be said with absolute certainty whether these debts are properly to be described as situate in Queensland or here. On one view of the principles of law, they could be situate here but from a contrary point of view they could be situate in Queensland; but if and in so far as the true effect is that they are situate here, this Clause effectively transfers them. If and in so far as the true view is that they are situate in Queensland, I am in a position to tell the House that the necessary legislation will be enacted in Queensland.

Captain Crookshank: I am glad of that intervention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I thought that

he was picking his words carefully, and there is this doubt about whether the debts are situate here or not. It is of tremendous importance to all of us, wherever we sit in the House, that we should be clear that in the long run we are going to get back the money in this case—at least I hope so. After all, in the case of East Africa we had to write off the money under Clause 3, but in this case we hope we shall get back these advances, so I take it that the position is that these words are apt, provided it is decided—I do not know who is to decide—that the debts are situate here.
If it is to be decided by somebody, perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us who will make a decision. Is it, for example, a matter to be settled by inter-Governmental negotiation—because that is one way—or, realising that in Australia—and I do not know how far this may apply to Queensland—there is a written Constitution, and therefore what is or is not constitutional may be settled by the courts in a way which is not possible here, is the matter to be settled in that way?
When some authority or other has decided that the debt is situate in this country, then this Clause covers the possibility of our getting the money back, and if some authority or other, has decided that it is situate in Queensland, then on the authority of this Government we have the promise that the Queensland Government will legislate to make that possible, and in that case, we shall recover the whole. That seems to be a clear proposition, leaving out of account just the one point of who is to decide. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman might intervene again and tell us who is to decide that; because if no one has the power to decide it, could not we have something put in the Bill itself to make it clear?

The Solicitor-General: As I have said, there is some doubt about the legal principles applicable as to where it is situate. It has been accepted by the Queensland Government that this transfer is to take place and therefore there will be legislation in Queensland. There is also this legislation, and one or other of the sets of legislation will certainly transfer these debts.

Amendment negatived.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert:
provided that no advances shall be made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.
This Amendment refers once again to the advances which are to be made to the Queensland Corporation. The subsection merely permits the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to make advances by way of loan on such terms as he thinks fit. As we know, those advances will appear in the Votes, and consequently this House will have more control than was the case in the past. When we discussed this matter on the Committee stage, I suggested that it might be a good idea to have some limiting figure on the advances which might be made in any given year, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, resisted that suggestion. He said that there was no particular point in it, because they did not intend to make any loans for two years. He said:
With a development scheme of this kind it is impossible to see further ahead than two years in any detail, but in case it is felt desirable to make further advances to the Queensland Corporation later on, surely it is preferable to make provision for the Minister to be in a position to do so, rather than to have to introduce further amending legislation in two years' time?
That was a good argument, but he had also said:
The point I want to make clear to the House—this is the real answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—is that there is no intention of exercising the power to make further advances for at least two years; that is, up to the end of 1952.
He added that they had sufficient resources now to carry them up to that date, and said:
I want to state quite categorically to the Committee that there is no intention of asking the House to exercise the power…to make further advances for at least two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th March. 1951; Vol. 485, c. 115–7.]
Having said that, it seems to me that it would be a good safeguard for this Parliament, particularly in this rather complicated legal position between the legislation here and the legislation in Queensland, to put into the Bill the very words of the right hon. Gentleman who assured us that he did not intend to make any advances for two years. He said that it was not intended to make any advances up to the end of 1952. Rather

than put the last day of December, 1952, we have suggested the first day of January, 1953, as the date before which no further advances should be made.
This point is clear. There is not very, much to be said about it in argument, except the general argument that, as has been the case all along with this Bill, we have been speaking rather more than hon. Gentlemen opposite on behalf of the taxpayers. After all, the taxpayers stand to lose vast sums of money as a result, partly of lack of control and partly of mismanagement in the previous dispensation. I repeat what I said the other day. I am perfectly certain that if in 1948 this House had insisted on putting in a number of safeguards, such as the maxima which might be advanced at different dates and different stages of development, we should have had a greater control all along than we did have, and possibly we should not in this Bill have to be writing off £36,500,000. The Government have said that in the case of Queensland they have enough money to carry on to the end of 1952. Therefore, they do not want us to put in a limiting figure. That is why we suggest this limiting date. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman himself said only so recently as last Monday. I find it hard to imagine what arguments he can produce against this Amendment. I do not think that he can produce any, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Webb: I myself would like to repeat to the House what T said in Committee, which was that, so far as this Government is concerned, we have no intention of asking the House to exercise the power to make further advances for at least two years. If I could be assured that I were likely to be Minister of Food—[Interruption.] Well, I cannot be sure, but if I could be sure that I would continue for that period of time, I would have been quite happy to, accept the Amendment, but I think that, after all, it is our common duty not to fetter the discretion of the House in any way if the House at any time wants to move, and certainly this Amendment would do that.
Let us assume—a wild assumption, perhaps—that the Opposition were to come back into power. In their wisdom,


perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be chosen to occupy my post, or it might be some other person, and he might come along and say, "Let us look at this Queensland Scheme. Obviously, it is an unimaginative job done by people with no ambition and no ideas about it. We have decided that we ought now to expand this Scheme. We have decided that there is a great opportunity in Queensland to extend the production of meat, and therefore we will make these advances."
What would happen then? If the House accepts this Amendment, they would be fettered straight away. [Interruption.] Of course they would and they would have to come along with amending legislation. Why should we make it difficult for the Conservatives? Surely, we must proceed on certain assumptions? Our assumption is that we shall continue to occupy power for the period of time given to us by the electorate of this country, and we have stated quite clearly—and I repeat it and stand by it—that we have no intention of exercising the power to make further advances for that period of time. We will not depart from that. On our assessment, the Queensland Corporation has adequate resources to carry out the programme which it wants to carry out, which we want it to carry out, and which it is physically capable of carrying out. Beyond that, we do not wish to go.
I think it would be improper of me to fetter my successor in this way, because he ought to be free to look at the matter afresh, and, if he has got better ideas and more initiative, why should he be circumscribed in this way? I think the House would be well advised to accept the undertaking we have given. Quite seriously, it would be rash to try to write it into legislation. After all, whatever party is in power, we do proceed, from time to time on certain general understandings that are openly arrived at, and this is an undertaking openly made and by which we stand. Surely, it would be improper by legislation to prohibit any future Administration from approaching the situation afresh and from proceeding to do anything they want it to do? I therefore advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Surely, it was a rather fantastic argument by the Minister that he should not fulfil the promise he gave to us the other day. I can quite understand his great concern about those who will follow him, but I do not think he need worry an awful lot about that now, because we are quite capable of looking after ourselves when that early opportunity arises. I am sure that whoever is Minister of Food then would not have any serious concern about making any adjustments should they become necessary.
What we are seeking in this Amendment is merely the carrying out of the Minister's own words, and while I admit that it would have been extremely uncomfortable for the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on occasions to have had to put into Bills some of the things he- said in the House of Commons and tried to live up to, there are many who believe that the Minister, when making this express promise, was also quite confident in the advice given to him that no further advances would be required for this Scheme until the end of 1952. At least, that is what the Minister has confirmed this evening. Surely, there could be no objection in principle to the Minister saying that this is accepted and could be included in the Bill?

Mr. Webb: There is one further safeguard, too. If it should turn out—and I hope it will not—to be necessary for me to have to make further advances, those advances would have to be presented in the House and openly discussed on a Vote.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I cannot see why that should cause complications. We know that these advances are not bearing any interest. I think it is important at this stage that we should get the Minister to do something about the promise he made. At the time we brought forward our Amendment, we asked only for a reasonable limitation. The Minister agreed it was reasonable, and I believe he thought our ceiling was unnecessarily high. He assured us that there was no need for advances during the next two years. Bearing in mind that that assurance was given to us without any question of doubt, it should not be difficult to put it in here.
Need the right hon. Gentleman worry about putting it in print because he may


be replaced I think he did not know how he could argue to get this kept out. On this side we should like to see the Minister's statement in black and white, so that he knows what he has to live up to while he is in his present office. I sincerely hope that the Minister may reconsider his decision.

Mr. Hurd: As the House knows, we are in partnership in this venture with the Queensland Government and operate under the Queensland British Production Act, 1948, which is a Queensland Act. We are the major partner, with a share of £1,250,000, while the Queensland Government have £250,000. They may have more in the venture now. What concerns me is that if this is operated under a Queensland Act and the Queensland Government decide, as they decided only last December, to add to the property we jointly own and control, have they the power of decision?
I think we shall find ourselves dragged at the heels of the Queensland Government in this matter. I do not know if the Minister can tell us whether he was consulted when this new property was taken on in December. I think we should safeguard our position by investing further money in this scheme, remembering that it is operated under a Queensland Act and that we may not have the deciding share in this country.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I found one thing very refreshing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, namely, the sentiment he expressed that he would not hold his office very long. I also found it refreshing that he was so solicitous about his successor. We were deeply impressed when he undertook not to spend any more money. The right hon. Gentleman says it was an open undertaking. We have had open undertakings on groundnuts and Gambia eggs, and we are used to open undertakings. What we want is something we can tie down. I am certain that none of my hon. Friends would be as wasteful of money as the Government. So far as anyone is in need of protection, it would not be us. What underlay his remarks was that he had some doubt about his own position. He may find himself coming back in less than two years and saying, "We have added up

wrong again. We want a few more millions. I am sorry, but we are not very good at addition." If people make mistakes as easily as that they ought to have to come back to the House and get a Bill. We would be prepared to pass such a Bill if we had to.

Sir Herbert Williams: I listened to the Minister with some interest. At one stage he said that if circumstances called for further advances another Bill would be necessary. I think that that is the right course. Later he intervened and said that in any case if the further advance was made it would appear in the Estimates, which we could have an opportunity of discussing. I am wondering if he is right about that. An advance by way of a loan is not quite the same thing as expenditure. It is a curious Parliamentary point, because if it is decided to make a loan under an Act of Parliament it does not appear in the Estimates in the ordinary way, since it relates to expenditure. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is so reluctant about this Amendment. It is perfectly sensible, and I understand it carries out his own intentions.
What the Minister says, just like what the soldier says, is not evidence—it cannot be quoted in any court. He and his predecessor have a very bad record in this matter, and if what he said tonight has made free the monkey nuts—I like to call them that—and shows there are more chickens in Gambia, that is all right. But when we have complete and fantastic failures in two other parts of the world we cannot take them on the same basis as we might otherwise have done.
The Government must come here—and I do not say this in any improper sense—with clean hands. It is important that we should tie them up, not that it really matters to the right hon. Gentleman, because he will not be there at the end of two years, and the Opposition are therefore imposing a restraint upon themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course they are. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that they will be on this side of the House within 12 months. It entirely depends on when the older members on the Government side decide that they cannot stand the strain, and forget to turn up on a Thursday as well as on a


Friday. What my right hon. Friend proposes is something which is imposing a restraint on the Minister and his other colleagues.

Captain Crookshank: I, too, listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest and it is clear from his speech that he never expected us to take up what he said the other day—that there was no likelihood of making any advance to the Corporation in two years—and thought we should leave it at that. We have very properly sought to insert words in the Bill. It does not matter whether I feel strongly about it because I have enjoyed the intellectual treat of listening to the right hon. Gentleman trying to get out of the words he used two days ago—and by a quibble. I was wondering how he would do it, and it was interesting to find that he had no excuse at all.
It is reasonable that we should put words in, and he need not worry about his successors. They can look after themselves much better than he or his friends have been able to do. They would be ready to introduce amending legislation, just as the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Colonies have had to introduce this Bill. It is amending legislation, but there is nothing frightful about it. The right hon. Gentleman said one thing on Monday and another thing on Wednesday, and as this is in line with Socialist action and thought, I do not intend to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. J. Dugdale.]

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I had thought that one of the three right hon. Gentlemen opposite was going to commend this Bill to the House. It is a matter of major importance affecting millions of His Majesty's subjects, in Africa and in the United Kingdom, and it seems strange that apparently nothing is to be said. If nothing is said, it will be in strange contrast to the eloquent speech which was made three years ago when the original groundnut Bill was commended by the present Secretary of State for War on its Third Reading stage.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have now completed all stages of this Bill except the last one. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has commended the Bill to the House, and I hope it will get a unanimous Third Reading. We have heard continuously from the other side of the House about the £36,500,000. Far be it from me to say anything about that except that I myself regard it as a grievous loss. I said earlier, and I say again, that this scheme was a venture. It was a risk. It has failed. We have admitted that it has failed. We deeply regret that failure, both on the ground of the £36,500,000, and also on the ground that the failure means that we must now, for some time at any rate, give up the hope of being able to cultivate this land in a short time by the methods which were tried. These cost £36,500,000.
I have said that I would not regard the £36,500,000 as anything but a grievous loss, but looking at the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I am reminded, as he also knows, that the first time I met him was before I came to this House, when he was Secretary for Mines. He does not recall that with great joy; neither do I. We have said already that the actual loss eventually to the taxpayers of this country may not be £36,500,000. It may be £36,500,000 less what is realised from the assets. I think that when we come finally to calculate the figure it may come down to £23,000,000. When I look at hon. Members opposite, this figure has significance for me, for it is what they gave to the coal owners in nine months. They shovelled out that amount in nine months in 1925 and 1926. All we had as a result was months of conflict in the mining industry.
I never heard anything about the taxpayers' money being lost then. There are hon. Gentlemen who were in this House in those days, and who are here now, whom I never heard demanding an investigation, who never asked for an inquiry by experts, or an independent inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the mining situation of years ago. That has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I express my regret if I have transgressed the rules of the House. That


is the last thing which I would wish to do, but I have memories of the consequences of that episode to the people to whom I belong and of the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite for that; I have memories of what it meant to people as good as me who for years after that lived in poverty as a result.
The position is that we have now discussed this Bill, which gives the Government authority to proceed with the revised scheme. That revised scheme is an experiment. It is bound to be an experiment, but it is an experiment which we hope will succeed. Anyhow, I and my right hon. Friend have sought in every possible way to ensure that as we go along I shall now be responsible, as Secretary of State, and shall answer questions about this scheme. I think it has been accepted that the statement which I made earlier this afternoon makes sure that from now on hon. Members will be able to ask questions, and that I shall accept responsibility for answering them. That statement will appear in HANSARD tomorrow.
In addition, there will be the annual reports, and there will be the Votes, and altogether, ample opportunity will be given for us to examine this scheme. There will be scope for debate on the Estimates and on the reports, and we shall have opportunity of checking, as we go along, and seeing whether this Bill, which authorises the scheme, is right. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members of this House—and especially those who are interested in colonial development—when I say we hope that the scheme will be a success.
Let us give the scheme our blessing, for, when all the party warfare has died out, the important fact which will remain is that in this territory of East Africa and, indeed, the Colonial Territories everywhere, we are facing the problem of ever-increasing population; and, if we are to give the people of those areas the standard of life which it is our intention to do, then we must seek a way of bringing the land, now swamp or waste not producing anything, into cultivation. We are seeking this moderate, modified experiment for which I shall do my best as Colonial Secretary. I am convinced that in the development of agriculture in most of these Colonial Territories the best

prospect of success is by bringing in the local governments. We shall link this with the Tanganyika Government, and I think one of our best chances is by bringing the Governments in through producer and consumer co-operatives. If the experiment succeeds, that may be the best way in which to develop it in the future.
I hope that the Bill will receive a unanimous Third Reading, and from then onwards, I shall do my best to give an account of the progress to the House. It is for the development of these Colonial Territories, and the improved standards of life for the people who live in them, that such a scheme is undertaken, and I have no doubt at all that, whatever Government we have, risks have to be taken if we are to do this job of development. Somebody has to take risks, and that means that somebody may fail.
The fact of the matter is that schemes of this kind—trying to cultivate land of this description—ought surely to be beyond party considerations. Such a scheme cannot be carried through except by public enterprise. The whole trend of our days in such a matter, as we see in Point 4 of the Colombo Plan, is that we cannot expect to raise the standard of life for these people unless public investment comes in and plays a vital part. This scheme is a small contribution to the major problem which is facing us, and, although a modified scheme, it can play a most important part in the experiment we are making for the benefit of the peoples of these overseas territories. From it we hope to learn a great deal of knowledge which we shall be able to apply to these and other territories for the benefit of all concerned.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not be in order if I followed the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his excursion into the pre-war history of the mining industry. I can say this, however, that, however irrelevant his observations were to the Third Reading of a Bill devoted solely to developments in East Africa, if it is true that large sums of money were passed to the coalowners and coal miners in pre-war years there was, as a result, some coal. That must be a strange contrast with the situation in the coal mines today.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think Mr. Speaker ruled that discussion of coal in 1926 was out of order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When you come to read HANSARD tomorrow, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will find that I was probably allowed as many words about it as was the right hon. Gentleman. I think I am in order in adding the fact that the £36 million spent on the Groundnut Scheme has not resulted in any groundnuts or in any increase in the home margarine ration.
At the time that the right hon. Gentleman made that rather unusual and irrelevant comment on history, he used the phrase, "my people." His people as a Cabinet Minister are not only the miners of this country, they are the taxpayers of this country as well. There are large numbers of people, many of whom have served Great Britain brilliantly in previous years, who are now living on fixed incomes in a world of mounting prices and whose personal position, largely through Government extravagance, is becoming intolerable. These are also the right hon. Gentleman's people, and I hope that he will remember that when he uses a phrase which suggests that he is solely concerned with one section of the community, however admirable.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made some comments in commending the Third Reading of this Bill to the House. It would be deplorable if a Bill of this magnitude, even on the Third Reading stage, were allowed to go through "on the nod," and I am glad that both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Food agree with me. We have had a great deal of talk about the past, but I am not going to talk about the past because it would not be in order. AH that is in order is what is in the Bill.
The only comment that I want to make on the past is that it appears very strange that a Bill of this kind should be commended on Third Reading to the House without the simultaneous resignation of the Secretary of State for War. The years between the wars are often derided, and the period before the last war often comes in for censure from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I think it would be inconceivable in previous years that a national disaster of the magnitude that this Bill represents should not be followed

by the resignation of the responsible Minister. The Minister of Food said today that he did not wish to fetter his successors. In one field, anyhow, he will not fetter them by the action of the Government today. If, after the next election there should ever be similar gross errors in public affairs perpetrated by a Conservative Minister, then the honourable practice of resignation would most certainly be evoked once more.
It is very hard indeed on the Minister of Food that he should have to be the main proposer of this Bill. He was a back bencher when the first Bill dealing with groundnuts was introduced into the House of Commons. It is true that he was then busy leading within his own party a crusade to reduce the cost of living. Alas, he did not succeed in that, nor has he succeeded in holding the cost of living.

Mr. George Thomas: Talk about the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better listen now, because he will hear a lot of this from his own constituents at the next election.
The White Paper from which this Bill arises states frankly that the new plan cannot itself contribute significantly towards Britain's food supplies. Tonight we are taking part in the last stages of the Bill. It wipes off £36½million of public money. Clause 3 (4) relieves the Overseas Food Corporation from the duty, imposed upon it by Parliament only three years ago, to return the advances that had been made to it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about this being financially prudent; the truth is that it is financially inevitable, and as such we most reluctantly accept it tonight.
The Bill, surely, provides the most glaring contrast with its predecessor. We can look on this picture and on that. We were to have had by this very month 600,000 tons of groundnuts and, shortly, 3,210,000 acres under groundnut production. The Bill, to which we are tonight giving a Third Reading, allows for the production of 81,000 acres under cultivation, of which only half are under groundnuts—40,000 acres, compared with an original plan for 3,210,000 acres. So much for "the most comprehensive plan in British history," as the


"Daily Herald" called it, comparable, as Sir Leslie Plummer said, to the opening up of the Middle West of America. One thing is quite certain: The effect of this, enshrined tonight in the Bill, will not be forgotten by the British people.

Mr. Monslow: You will see to that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly. They will not need much reminding. And it will have long-term consequences, and most serious consequences, on the attitude of the British people to all schemes of State control and bureaucratic farming.
In so far as the Bill has a good feature, it is the transference to the Colonial Office of responsibility for this scheme. This transference we have urged for three and a half years, and we are, of course, delighted that it has now happened. We shall not forget, and I do not believe the House will forget, that the Conservative Party from the start have urged that this scheme of Colonial enterprise should be under the authority of the Colonial Secretary.
We shall watch the proposals in regard to Queensland with the closest concern and interest. It is my belief that the best contribution that the Queensland Corporation can give to the development of Queensland is to provide essential services and communications, roads, and any other aids to transport and development; and then, on the merits of applications, whether from development corporations in Australia, from private enterprise or from any other source, consider the handing over of the schemes, and particularly the grain scheme, to other forms of development. We shall watch with the utmost interest anything that affects the dual concern of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the United Kingdom.
Apart from these two considerations—the transference to the Colonial Office and the Queensland Scheme—what is the only other purpose of the Bill? It is to spend another £6 million, allowing for a wide margin of error, on what, no one can deny, is another gamble. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who were not present earlier this afternoon might now keep quiet and listen to the argument. Earlier this afternoon we heard that the total cost of this restricted development in East Africa is to be £13 million, but

it will be only £6 million if the crops from the scheme can sell for £7 million. And this at a time when no one can predict with accuracy what will happen to the prices of primary products. So it is not really fair to say that this will cost only £6 million. We do not know. And the Government phrase—"a wide margin of error"—has wisely been inserted.
This sum is being asked for from Parliament without an independent enquiry, and solely for the purpose of considering the best conditions in which tropical agriculture can be conducted. And this is done at a time when we are writing off £36½ million which was spent in order to discover how tropical agriculture could best be conducted. Really the reliance that His Majesty's Government place on the short memories of people in this House and the country must not be strained too far.
In the speeches that have been made today commending these proposals to the country there has been no suggestion whatever of any co-operation and coordination between the different Government agencies all engaged on the same sort of research. There is nothing in this Bill to show whether the pilot scheme in Northern Rhodesia has even been considered by the Overseas Food Corporation. There is nothing to show whether any lessons have been learned from the survey into the mechanisation of native agriculture carried out last year in West Africa by the Colonial Office when the Ministry of Food was responsible for the Groundnut Scheme.
Just as in the case of the Gambia egg scheme, no reference whatever appears to have been made to the Medical Research Council which was carrying on work of the same kind at the same time and in the same place, so in Africa no reference to bodies similarly and simultaneously engaged has appeared to have taken place. Under Socialist planning no planner apparently tells any other planner what he is doing. Words were attributed to the Foreign Secretary on his return from a foreign tour some years ago which might well apply to the situation tonight, when he found his colleagues all acting in different ways and apparently under different directives. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have said, "There is far too much private enterprise in our first Socialist Government."
The Bill that we are now considering is largely based on two paragraphs in the White Paper—paragraphs 14 and 17. Paragraph 14 says that this scheme would make a significant contribution to the economic development of East Africa. But is this really true? Is it really to the advantage of East Africa to do something there which may be thoroughly uneconomic? I think we owe a duty to our fellow citizens in Tanganyika not only to do uneconomic things but to do something economic in order to lead them on to better and more prosperous agriculture. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper suggested it would cost just as much to stop this scheme now as it would to continue it. But this has never been proved to the satisfaction of the House. Never at any time have arguments been advanced which commend themselves to fair-minded people.
I recognise that the Minister of Food has made elaborate attempts to break up the complicated figures in regard to the loss on sales and the other financial consequences of the change, and we are grateful to him for that. We also thank him for what I believe to be his genuine attempt to be candid with the House of Commons. But even now we do not really know whether it would not be more economic to stop the scheme altogether. When the right hon. Gentleman is so contemptuous of the £4½ million which he says it would cost to stop the scheme, he leaves out altogether the assets of £10 million which we heard about this afternoon, of which at least £6½ million would be available even if the scheme were stopped. There are all sorts of other ways in which his figures this afternoon failed to give any satisfaction to the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has, I know, various questions to ask him on that theme.
Yet it is solely on these two paragraphs of the White Paper that this Bill is being commended to the House of Commons. It is for this reason alone that the Overseas Food Corporation is being retained. There is no justification for it whatsoever and another Act of Parliament will be necessary in order to get rid of it. The tragedy of all this is that we might have had a common approach to the problems in East Africa. Both sides might have agreed, if only we could

have had an impartial inquiry into what our next step should be. In this way both sides in Parliament and the country could have been united, and in this way alone real confidence can be given to the staff in Africa.
But the Government have chosen the purely political solution, and it is not our fault if it cannot be an agreed solution. Many intractable problems remain to be solved in Africa. We do not know yet, despite what the Minister of Food has said, what is needed to conquer Africa, but we believe that in this field, as in so many others, the conquest of any difficult task will be best achieved by the departure of the present Government and its replacement at the earliest possible date by a Conservative administration.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I would not have intervened had it not been for the speech to which we have just listened. I think it is rather a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not adopt a less arrogant attitude. If he will take these lessons from that nasty little bit of Spanish riffraff, General Franco—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The head of a friendly State must not be alluded to in those terms in this House.

Mr. Snow: I had forgotten that we have recognised Spain and sent out our Ambassador, and in view of that I must withdraw, but for many months we have been aware that the hon. Gentleman models himself on that sort of dictatorial attitude and displays this arrogant attitude in the House.
When I hear these rather speculative comments coming from Members of the Opposition on the character of the next administration, I cannot help feeling, when they say that the country will not forget this admittedly very serious loss of £36,500,000, that the country will not forget either the hundreds of millions that had to be put by previous Conservative Governments into the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker prevented an earlier discussion about coal expenditure, and this is the same sort of thing. On Third Reading it is only the contents of the Bill which are liable to be discussed.

Mr. Snow: I was using that as an illustration. Members of the Opposition are relating the provisions of this Bill with the sort of Bill they would enforce if they came into power. The sort of confidence they are likely to produce should be viewed in the context of the millions of pounds which went into the Unemployment Fund from the taxpayers' pockets in order to support the gross inefficiency of previous Conservative administrations.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am not sure whether the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the temperature or not, but I shall certainly not seek to follow him on his devious paths. The Secretary of State for the Colonies developed two themes in advocating the Third Reading. The first was a reference to the coal mines, and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will at once rule me out of order if I follow the right hon. Gentleman on that path. It seemed to me that he maintained fully the high standard of Socialist misrepresentation which is the ouly bulwark of a disintegrating ideology and a fast-disappearing administration.
The second argument the right hon. Gentleman put forward was a rather sentimental appeal to us to support the cause of colonial development. From these benches such an appeal will always receive a very considerable welcome, but we do not believe that the cause is really advanced by hopeless failures like the Groundnut Scheme, which damaged not only our economy but our prestige and did absolutely no good at all to colonial development, to us, or to the African.
I want to put before the House one or two arguments with regard to the Third Reading of the Bill. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the transfer of responsibility to the Colonial Secretary. We all agree with that. The Minister of Food is probably the most relieved man amongst us that he is getting rid of this scheme, and we think that it is time it should go to the Colonial Office.
Then we come to Clause 3 (4), which provides for the writing off of the £36 million. The argument that this House should accept that proposition was put

forward by the Minister of Food on 20th February:
One significant factor which has been taken into account by the Government in considering the continuation of the Scheme is the fact that the cost of going on is not widely different from the cost of abandoning it, with all the grave consequences in Africa that would follow abandonment.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1089.]
Then he goes on to develop this figure of £4,500,000, about which he gave us particulars. I suppose that argument was based on paragraph 17 of the White Paper where it says, p. 6, dealing with the £6 million:
This cost is not widely different from the heavy liabilities amounting to several million pounds which the Corporation would in any case have had to meet if it had been decided to abandon the whole project forthwith. This constitutes a powerful additional reason for continuing the scheme on the lines proposed.
A very substantial argument in favour of passing this Bill has been that it would be nearly as costly to close down the scheme as to continue with it in modified form. We have pressed again and again—and the fact we have not succeeded in getting answers makes one profoundly suspicious—for the full financial disclosure of that argument. Assuming the cost of these special items is going to be £4,500,000, assuming—which is dubious—the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the railway payment of £3 million, what we have not been given is the estimate of realising the present assets of the Corporation if there was a sale at the present time. We were told this afternoon that these assets amount to £10,500,000. We were also told that the cost of disposing of them if there were a sale would be £1 million.
But we have not been told what would be the proceeds of that process of realising the assets, except perhaps that we did get an inkling what the figure would be when the right hon. Gentleman said the scheme at present had cost the taxpayer £36 million, but it was hoped eventually it would cost him only £23 million. Can it be, therefore, that it is expected that these assets when disposed off will amount to £12 million. That is a very high figure. I doubt very much if they will bring in anything like that. One thing we can be certain about in the estimate of the Minister of Food or the Corporation is that the cost of the disposal of these


assets will be £1 million. Probably the proceeds will be considerable, but what we have never been given is an estimate of what that figure will be. What is also certain is that it is going to cost us £4,500,000 to close down the scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is going beyond the Bill. It does not deal with closing down the scheme.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am addressing my argument to Clause 4 (3), which deals with the writing off of advances which have been made up to now before the commencement of this Bill. The argument put before the House on why those advances should be written off was that it would not be more expensive to go on with the scheme than to close it down. My argument is directed to the writing off of the £36 million.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that the scheme is being carried on and is not being closed down under the Bill.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Whatever may be happening to the scheme, the £36 million is being written off, and the point I am seeking to make is that the argument that, supposing a decision were to be taken not to write off the whole £36 million and only to write off a net figure—in other words, the amount of advances less what was received for assets—that may put a completely different aspect on the matter. I am dealing solely with the quotation I have given from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, giving the reason why he should advocate this Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But we are dealing with the Third Reading now and can deal only with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am trying to deal with what is in the Bill. I thought that in dealing with the arguments against writing off the £36 million I was entitled to deal with the arguments for it. One of the arguments put before the House for Clause 4 (3) was that if we did not continue with the scheme the cost to the taxpayer would be as great as it would be if we closed it down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what we are doing; we are carrying on. There is no alternative before us now.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There may be no alternative—

Mr. Monslow: A point of order. Is it right for the hon. and learned Gentleman to argue with you as to what is the correct procedure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: He may argue that I have been proved wrong, but up to the moment I have not been.

Mr. H. Strauss: Further to the point of order. Clause 3 (4) makes a definite proposal to write off certain sums. As that is in the Bill, are not the merits of that proposal open to discussion on Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. And learned Member was suggesting an alternative to writing off—selling out now instead of carrying on.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I had not made-myself clear. The fault is entirely mine and I apologise for it. I did not deal with hypotheses of any sort but with the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman to justify this Clause. All I am doing is to try to examine the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. If I may remind you again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you did not hear fully the first time, in suggesting that the House should adopt this Clause the argument was that the cost of going on is not widely different from the cost of abandoning it. I am dealing with that argument and not with any suppositious argument. I had practically finished my argument on that point. I was saying that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was bogus, and should have no validity at all unless the Treasury bench is straightforward enough to come along and give the facts. It is the facts about the estimates of the surplus assets which the Government have refused to give.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the point on which I was stopping the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If you rule that I am not to proceed with the argument I will not. But that Ruling comes, if I may say so with all respect, very acceptably, because I had finished dealing with the point. I have made my case and I shall now turn to my second point. [Interruption.] Disregarding the animal noises, I


now come to Clause 3 subsection (i) which says
It shall be the duty of the Overseas Food Corporation so to exercise and perform their functions as to secure, as soon as practicable, that their revenues are not less than sufficient to meet all sums properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.
I gather from this that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that this new project shall proceed on ordinary business lines, and that all sums properly chargeable to revenue account should be met, taking one year with another and that the accounts should balance. That I gather is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, but of course what is relevant to that Clause is the capital structure of the new venture.
What I do not think has been appreciated is that apparently there is to be transferred to the new venture £7,500,000 of assets, and apparently no charge is to be made on the revenue of the new project to meet interest charges, depreciation charges or anything of the sort. It is necessary that the House and the public should know that the new Corporation is starting with a gift of £7,500,000 of assets, plant and machinery. In addition, it is also going to get another £2,500,000 of new capital so that it is going to start with something like £10 million of assets. I agree that it might be necessary to write down the £7,500,000 because a proportion of assets may not be worth that full figure. If we are to start the new Corporation off honestly it should be clearly intimated to the House what is the value of the assets to be transferred and to it should be added £2,500,000 of new capital.
If I understand aright, the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman earlier when he explained the forecast of the operating costs of the Corporation in the new venture, he stated that over the next seven years they were to be £8,250,000 and that that amount was to be expended to obtain a revenue of £7,500,000 from the crops to be grown. We were told that the figure of £6 million was wrong and that really it was £13,500,000: £2,500,000 was capital, £8,250,000 operating expenses and £2,750,000 dealing with past commitments. We were told that this £13,500,000

was a gross figure and the nett figure or nett cost of £7,500,000 was to be received from the sale of crops. The Government are asking the taxpayer to believe that it is good business to spend £8,250,000 operating expenses to obtain a revenue of £7,500,000.
On the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House it is obvious that the scheme starts off thoroughly unsound and involving the taxpayer in a loss. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that he is raising some hope of assistance from some quarters. It may well be that something which one is supposed not to have heard may be the only salvation of this scheme. The plain fact is that if there is an honest disclosure of the value of the assets which the Corporation is going to take over, if there is honest accounting in the sense of the Corporation's paying reasonable interest on capital expenditure, on the figures we have been given there is not a hope of this project running on an economic basis. The taxpayers should know that at the outset of the scheme. The Government have not been frank, and all our arguments for independent accounting have been trebly reinforced by what we have been told from the Government benches today. For some reasons we are glad that the Minister of Food is being freed from responsibility, but it is with great misgiving that we give this Bill its Third Reading.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Listening, as I have done, to the debates on the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Bill, and taking part in them to some small extent, I have been reminded by the speeches of hon Members opposite of the old saying, "When the devil is sick, the devil a saint would be; when the devil is well, the devil a saint is he." That has been the experience of the colonial peoples under the rule of the party opposite. Quite frankly, I think it would cause a tremor in every colonial heart if there were any chance of the Opposition attaining power once again in this country. But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not want to draw the debate any further away from the Bill and on to course to which the Opposition has been seeking to divert it.
I think that in all parts of the House we have to realise that we, not merely Parliament but this nation, are in the position of trustees to the United Nations for this particular territory. Therefore, I submit that in passing this Bill we must look on it as a contribution to a long-term policy, which will enable us, I hope, to live up to the position which the United Nations organisation has given us as trustees of this territory.
I personally am glad, because I advocated it from the beginning—as did some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House—that this scheme now passes into the control of the Colonial Office. That office is specifically charged not merely with running this scheme, but with dealing with the welfare of the African peoples. That is a most important point which I am sure every hon. Member will bear in mind tonight. I want to quote the charge we have laid upon ourselves, as it is stated in the 1947 Report to the United Nations administration, on our trusteeship of this territory. We say that our long-term policy shall be that this undertaking must eventually be incorporated into the African economy; and should in the final stages pass to the ownership and control of the Africans themselves.
In Command Paper 7030, of 1947, when this scheme, which is now to be transferred to the Colonial Office, was suggested, we took this obligation on our shoulders:
His Majesty's Government recognise that it would be objectionable to place the management and development of large areas of these African territories under the permanent control of an organisation from outside the territories. Their intention is therefore to arrange with the governments concerned that the undertaking should be transferred to them at a time and on terms to be agreed in the light of experience of the working of the project.…This ultimate stage of the possible development of the scheme must be dependent on the emergence of skilled..

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is reading something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that the quotation is a little long, but it is, I respectfully submit, important for the point which I propose to develop. If I may, I would just conclude the quotation by saying that the ultimate stage of possible development would have to be dependent upon

the emergence of skilled and trained African staff for the efficient management and operation of the project.
It is because I believe that the Colonial Ministry is pledged to have regard for the welfare of the colonial peoples and I think is best fitted for this type of work, that I am glad it is now taking over this project. As you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be out of order for me to develop this side of the argument too far, but every hon. Member must realise that, while the economic aspect about which we have been talking is important, the social welfare, the housing conditions, and all the other human needs of the African people are equally important. I do believe that the Colonial Office is best fitted to look after this type of development. I therefore welcome the transfer of function.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I only want to make a brief intervention, and one which, I hope, will be in order. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said that we were trustees, and I agree with him. But we are trustees who are administering a rather small and limited trust fund. We have had an inquest into how a fairly considerable sum of money can be wasted, with its consequent serious damage to the taxpayer; that point has been emphasised, and rightly so. But that money, £36 million, or £23 million, or whatever it is, has already been lost to development. This sum, which might have done so much good in some of the Empire countries, or even in this country in agricultural development has, unfortunately, been lost. It has failed to yield results. We should all bear that in mind. We should also bear in mind not only the spending of the £36 million, but the sum of effort which has been mortgaged in this scheme.
This Bill deals with the future of the scheme in Africa. I would say in passing that, judging by the arguments put forward on Clause 2, it seems that in the eyes of the Secretary of State the project outlined in the White Paper falls largely under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948—that it has been begun under that Act and is only being continued under this Bill. There are certainly powers under this Bill for the Corporation to undertake further schemes.
Bearing in mind the difficult situation of this country, what we have to learn from past experience in this matter is that in spending the sums at our disposal we have to take a wider view of the possibilities of our Colonial Empire and of the Commonwealth. I agree with hon. Members who welcome the change of responsibility to the Colonial Office, but have they the machinery for planning this type of enterprise? They have gained a considerable amount of experience themselves, and they have sent out independent people who have reported on these schemes. I hope the Colonial Office will keep in touch with those people and that information obtained from independent inquirers will not be kept at the back of some pigeonhole but in the front of the Minister's mind.
The debate has shown that the whole system of accounting and costing in these matters need overhauling. While these schemes are being developed—and I hope that they will be developed and will be successful—can we be assured that at the same time there will be an inquiry going on into the whole question of how a public corporation acting at a great distance from home, in unusual circumstances and opening new territories, can be controlled? Again, what is the test of the success of this type of scheme to be in the future? I hope that one lesson to be drawn from this unhappy incident is that we shall keep past experience in the forefront of our minds. Should the Corporation undertake new schemes they will do so with the good wishes of the House. I hope they will do so with the closest attention to the wider problems, such as choosing the right territory and deciding how best that territory may be served.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I want to commend this Bill very earnestly to the House in the hope that all will vote for it. Whatever the extravagant language used in the debate, I am quite sure the passing of the Bill will be heartening for many of our fellow human beings in the colonial areas. That being so, it seems to me that although, quite rightly, we criticise previous mistakes and failures, as indeed we have criticised the failure of the lamentable plan to grow groundnuts in East Africa, nevertheless we should take

in the wider context and realise that in a great experiment, though we may try to avoid them, losses may occur.
We hear a great deal about the losses incurred in any Government enterprise or venture, but rarely do we hear anything about the tremendous losses made by private enterprise. Of course, it can be said that the losses in private enterprise are borne just by the few, but that is not so. The losses of private enterprise are borne by the whole of the country. They mean so much waste of labour, energy and skill. Yet, surely, we must recognise that in pre-war days and in the last century, an enormous amount of capital was sunk overseas from which no immediate return could be obtained.
In course of time, learning by the experience of losses as well as of successes, a great deal was done for what was then called the Colonial Empire. We cannot go on in the same way. Private enterprise plays its part, and will play its part, of course, but surely no one in the House with vision and foresight would deny that Government enterprise of this kind is urgently necessary. For that reason, I hope we shall not now hear so much about the losses incurred in ventures of this kind, but that if there are such losses they will at least be put in the context to which I have referred—the context, in other words, of the wider vision at which we are aiming.
We should, therefore, join together in supporting the passage of the Bill, with a recognition that what we are all aiming at is not merely service to ourselves, but service to those 60 million fellow human-beings in the colonial areas and Protectorates associated with this country. For that reason, and abbreviating my remarks, I earnestly hope that the whole House will give the Bill its unanimous support.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: At all stages of the Bill when hon. Members opposite have joined in the debates, they have tried to put up a more or less genial smokescreen to cover the salient facts which have impressed, not merely us on these benches, but people throughout the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) put it, I think it is most disgraceful that after an enormous loss like that involved in the earlier scheme—not of private money, but of public money—the Secretary of


State for War should still be holding high office, and an even higher office, in the Government.

Mr. Speaker: That is nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We have seen one brief appearance on the Government Front Bench of the Solicitor-General, but no figures which have been given, or any information available in the Bill as it now stands, are of such a nature that they would have been accepted in the ordinary liquidation of bankruptcy proceedings of either a big or a small corporation.
I should like to turn to the specific figure of £23 million which was mentioned by the Colonial Secretary and was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). That may be just the Colonial Secretary's lucky number, or, as he would rather have it, his unlucky number. Then there is the figure of £13½ million. I took down as carefully as I could the figures from the Minister of Food—who, I am sorry to say, is not now present—when he gave us some more accurate figures about the details of the future of the scheme.
Without going into those figures at any length at this hour, I support what my hon. and learned Friend said. As far as we can see from the Bill in its present shape, the capital sum, as the venture continues, is now to be some £10½ million; and on operating expenses in the next six years of about £8½ million, it is estimated that at the end of that period there will be a return of £7½ million. If I am wrong, I hope that somebody on the Government side will correct me. But that we should embark now in spending another £2 or £3 million of capital for an estimated loss at this stage of £1 million, on operating expenses over the next six years, obviously justifies our past request for an inquiry, which, of course, has not been granted.
I refer again to the somewhat sentimental speech of the Colonial Secretary on future development, Point 4, and so on. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that to those of us who have various communications from across the Atlantic on Point 4, the greatest blow to many of us, on both sides of the House, who believe in overseas development, has been the failure of the past scheme. We do not appear, from any information that has been given to me,

to have taken full advantage of the lessons from that failure. We still hear speeches—not so much from the Front Bench opposite, but from behind it—on this scheme which appear to suggest the sort of lavish mismanagement that has been going on in the past.
We must face the fact that this will be a great difficulty when we come to undertake future development, as so many of us wish to do. And this Bill, as amended, on its Third Reading does not give us confidence on this side of the House. In fact, the figures produced by the Minister of Food today make me feel more than ever that something is being concealed, not only from us on these benches but from the taxpayers of this country who willingly at the time put up this money. Now we feel that we cannot get adequate replies to our questions, and that we cannot get the kind of information which in Carey Street would be demanded by the Public Prosecutor, if by nobody else.

11.46 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I hope I am not cutting out any of my hon. Friends who still want to address the House on this matter, but we are at the last stages of what is, I will not say one of the most important Bills of this Session—I daresay it is not that—but a Bill of considerable public interest. Of that there is no doubt.
One of the curious things about the Bill is that all the time during the debates—and, indeed. inevitably even at this stage—a lot has been said about the project which is under way in East Africa. Yet there is nothing about the project in the Bill. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 charges the Overseas Food Corporation with the duty of securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects, but it says nowhere in the Bill what the projects are. So we have this rather curious fact in the debate that we are talking about something which is not clearly defined except insofar as it is defined in the White Paper.
It is quite true, as the hon. Members for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) said, that we must consider ourselves in this House and in this country as trustees for the colonial people. But we are also trustees for the people of this country, and they have been committed by the rashness of the Secretary of State for War to the vast


public expenditure which now, under Clause 3 of this Bill, we have to write off. So we are looking at the matter in a dual capacity. We want to see what can be salvaged out of the project, and for it to be a success for the benefit of the colonial people, particularly those in East Africa. In fact it is solely in East Africa, because by the Amendment made earlier today we have limited the scheme to that area, and we have again the definite statement in the White Paper that there is no suggestion of having any other scheme anywhere else.
So that we are really on a comparatively small matter—not actually, but comparatively with what were the high hopes of three years ago. And, of course, while we have to look at the matter in that light now and as the years go by under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies—who is the Minister charged with the welfare of the colonial subjects of the King; while we have to be watching that in the future, we also at the same time, in our capacity as Members of Parliament in the British House of Commons, have to see that public money is not wasted.
That, of course, has been one of the difficulties which we have been trying to get safeguarded as we have debated the various Clauses of the Bill. We have not been successful in everything we put forward; on the other hand, we have received certain valuable assurances—at least, I am sure they will turn out to be valuable because right hon. Gentlemen opposite are honourable men. Though they made some before which were not so successful, after their previous experience the assurances they have given now we ought to be able to accept. I am sorry that the Colonial Secretary let himself go on an entirely different topic which would quite well have been answered at the appropriate time. The strange part about all this is that, being faced with a measure to write off this very large sum of £36,500,000, neither at this stage nor at any other period during the discussions of this Bill has there been one expression of regret from the Government. They appear not to be in the least sorry.

Mr. G. Thomas: The Secretary of State said so.

Captain Crookshank: He is never here.

Mr. Thomas: The Secretary of State for the Colonies said so.

Captain Crookshank: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I meant the Secretary of State for War. He is the one who has the most regretting to do about this. His regret is part of the collective regret of the Government. It has not been stressed at all from the Government bench, and there really has not been, in fact, any real expression of regret. On the other hand, there has been a great deal said about there being bound to be failures in great projects of this sort, whether they are private or national ones, and that it was unfortunate that this turned out to be one of the failures.
It is suggested that in the development of the Colonial Empire these things have happened before, but that in the long run someone was more successful than his predecessors and made a success of a venture which in earlier days was a failure. That may be so. I am certainly not on Third Reading going to be foolish enough to try and study the whole history of colonial development. If the outcome of the passage of this Bill is successful then surely there will be some satisfactory residue of the great experiment of 1948, but there is nothing so far to show that that is likely to happen. In the White Paper and Ministerial speeches it has been pointed out that the scheme is subject to a very wide margin of error, and that the experiment has to go on as best it may, and so on.
The experiment will go on obviously, and we can only hope on the advice which has now been tendered and secured from the working party, and any further investigation which may take place as a result of subsection (1) of Clause 2, that this advice will be better founded or turn out more fortunate than that of earlier years. It may turn out that this much modified scheme will be a success, and that there will be opportunities in the end, as the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said, for the scheme to pass out of the hands of any non-African control and become a purely African project. That was his argument and desire. It can, presumably, be carried out under the language of this Bill itself. We had an Amendment down on that very point.
We have always been for the encouragement of the peasant proprietorship in cases like this, and it may be


that the further investigations which the right hon. Gentleman's Corporation will be making will tend in that direction, and that control can gradually be lifted, provided the experiment is a success. Of course, if it is a failure no one will want to have anything to do with it, but if it is a success we shall have to see how to marry the two views, expressed on opposite sides of the House, notably by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on this side. All that of course is in the future.
As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is in fact the liquidation and complete collapse, with provisions to rescue what can be rescued. We have done our best during the passage of the Bill to try and get elucidation on some of the points. We have tried our best to amend it, and we have been much obliged for the courtesy and patience of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. They have been most helpful in putting their point of view, and the result of that has been shown today, in that we have carried on this debate and covered a great deal of ground without having to trouble the House with a division at all. There may be some points left over for further consideration—I do not know.
We do wish the Bill well; it achieves part of what has been our objectives all along. Part of the Bill transfers responsibility from the Minister of Food to the Colonial Secretary, and that has been one of our cardinal principles ever since it was first raised. But like other Bills, there are good and bad parts. Some parts we like, other parts we do not like. That is unfortunately apt to be the case in a Bill that deals with so many different topics. We agree with the transfer of responsibility. The Bill then deals with writing off the losses to the extent of £36,500,000, which we regard as quite inevitable, because the losses have been made and the Corporation says that there is no possibility at all of being able to carry out the Act for which they were appointed or to carry out the duties placed upon them in 1948. So we have to accept that.
Then, when it comes to Clause 2, the functions and responsibilities of the Overseas Food Corporation, we thought that they might be transferred altogether to the sphere of the Colonial Secretary. But we cannot go back on that. As for Queensland, we have accepted the present situation. But what lies behind the Bill

is the complete failure of this Government-organised Corporation, this Government-supported Corporation, to fulfil the terms and the obligations of the duties that were laid upon it in the Act of 1948; and that, like the Government, we are inevitably bound to accept.
But we say that this episode is not going to be easily forgotten by the British people. It is no good hon. Gentlemen interrupting during the debate, like the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Snow); it is no good their denigrating the matter and thinking it is of no consequence. It has been brought home fully to the British people that here the Government have entirely failed in one of the things they thought was going to be one of their greatest successes. They can make all the excuses they like, but that is not going to be easily forgotten. So far as this Bill can do something to save money from the wreck we do not propose to divide against it at this stage, and we hope that in the long run, as often happens, good will come out of evil—because up to now it has been mostly evil.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Honiton, [copy presented on 2nd March] approved.

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Seaton, [copy presented on 2nd March] approved.

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Shard-low, [copy presented on 2nd March] approved.—[Mr. Ede.]

CLOSED HIGHWAYS (REVOCATION ORDER)

12 m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 10th February 1951, entitled the Stopping up of Highways (Various) (Revocation) (No. 3) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 220), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be annulled.
When I put this Motion on the Order Paper, I had not anticipated that only today there would be in the Vote Office the Third Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I have only had time to look at somewhat briefly.

Mr. Speaker: There are three Orders and the point is the same in all of them: would it not be convenient to discuss the three on the first?

Sir H. Williams: I have no desire to discuss any but the first Order. The others are put down to draw attention to the principle. There are two others which we could have prayed about on Friday, but we thought it would inconvenience hon. Members if we had a debate late on Friday. I do not want to move the Motions relating to the other two; I want the debate to take place on the first.
The Third Report of the Select Committee, ordered by the House to be printed on the 5th, was available in the Vote Office today. It would be improper for me to read it now, but I hope hon. Members will read it. It draws attention to delays in the presentation to the House of Statutory Instruments, and that is one of the points I wish to raise in moving this Prayer.
There are three Acts involved in this Order—the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and Defence Regulation 16 under that Act; the Requisition of Land and War Works Act, 1945, and the Requisition of Land and War Works Act, 1948. The matter is of some complexity. Perhaps these Orders can be challenged in the courts, but I think it is right that they should be challenged in this House, to see whether the Acts have been properly complied with. The Acts laid down certain procedure, and in the Statutory Instruments Act. 1946, which amended the Rules (Publication) Act, 1893, certain procedure with regard to Statutory Instruments is prescribed.
My impression is that the Acts of Parliament have not been properly complied with. Therefore, I am inclined to think there may be some challenge before the House as well as what may happen in the courts as to whether these Orders are valid. When Black Rod appears and we are asked to go to another place and hear the Royal Commission read, in that Commission we are told about "good and perfect Acts." That has no relation to their merits. The phrase means that the courts have to take cognisance of them and that all the King's horses and all the King's men can be used to enforce them.
I understand that it would be quite improper for me to indulge in any argument about the merits of the three Acts I have mentioned, but I am entitled to ask whether the Minister has done what is necessary. It is important that hon. Members should realise that in this matter we are standing for Parliament and not for party. Hon. Members opposite always think of themselves as supporters of the Government, but the time will come when they will find themselves supporting an Opposition, and their present state of mind will be altered. Few hon. Members opposite have had that experience. Only a remnant of them will have it shortly. But that remark is made just in passing.
During the last 10 years I have had a standing order with the Vote Office whereby every Friday I received a complete bundle of the Statutory Instruments. I tacitly assumed that every Statutory Instrument reached me; but I had no knowledge of the three Statutory Instruments to which these Prayers relate until, by chance, I read the Second Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and found a reference to the five Statutory Instruments to which I have referred. I was rather surprised that I had not seen them. I went into the Vote Office some days ago, and said that I wanted copies of them. Then, to my amazement I found that there was none available. It seemed to me to be most improper because. in view of the terms of the Select Committee's Report, I knew that they were prayable Instruments. If we could move a Prayer, in respect of them—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Sir H. Williams: According to the conventions of the House, under Standing Orders I do not think that the hon. Member can indulge in that effort for another hour. That may comfort him. As I was saying, although I look through these Orders every Friday, these particular Orders did not reach me. It was only upon reading the Second Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—I think it was the Second Report—that I discovered that these Orders had been made. I found that they were prayable Instruments.
While it might not be unreasonable that any Statutory Instrument in respect of which we can take no action should not be available in the Vote Office, it seems to me to be fundamentally wrong that Statutory Instruments in respect of which we can take action, should not be in the Vote Office. I made inquiries, partly by Questions and partly by visiting the Library. In regard to the Question which I asked the Minister of Works on 6th March, I got this answer:
These Statutory Instruments were laid before Parliament in the normal way by depositing three copies in the Votes and Proceedings Office, and two copies of each have been available in the Library since the dates of laying. At the same time 15 copies were sent to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Instruments are revocation orders and of local interest only, and it has not been the custom to make extra copies available to hon. Members through the Vote Office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 45.]
If the right hon. Gentleman who gave me that answer will take the trouble to read the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, he will find that it is the duty of the Stationery Office to number, print and circulate these documents. The Stationery Office, to whom I addressed this question, had it transferred to the right hon. Gentleman; they quickly got rid of it to him. He gave me a very strange answer. I was also concerned with the principle involved. I addressed the Question to him because he had signed the Order, but by this strange process of abdicating responsibility, he shoved it off on to the Minister of Transport.
The name at the end of the Order is "R. R. Stokes, Minister of Works." That, in itself, is all right, but he is not Minister of Transport. But the question addressed to him was not answered by him; it was answered by the Minister of Transport. It seems all very strange to me. I asked

that a Bill should be introduced to amend the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, in view of the fact that Orders under it to close up highways were not debatable in the House, while Orders to reopen such highways were debatable. The Minister of Transport replied:
I do not think that such a Bill is required. The Act contains sufficient safeguards in regard to the closure of highways by its provisions for dealing with objections, for reference to the War Works Commission in the event of sustained objections, and for reference to Parliament of any case in which departure from a report of the Commission is proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March. 1951; Vol. 485, c. 51.]
Now, that answer is complete and unadulterated nonsense because these Orders which he is repealing were not made under that Act. They were made under Defence Regulation 16 of the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, and not the Requisitioned Land and War Works Acts of 1945–48. The answer was nonsensical. So I have had two nonsensical answers, one from the Minister of Transport, and one from the Minister of Works.
In fact, are these things valid at all? On innumerable occasions, Mr. Speaker, when you have presided during the hearing of a Prayer, you have probably had in your hand a small document "printed and published by the Stationery Office." Instead of that, to-night I have three documents, none of which is published by the Stationery Office. They were typewritten and duplicated in the right hon. Gentleman's office, and he is not authorised by Statute to do that. So he also is probably committing an offence.
When I got these Orders—which were not sent to me, but which I discovered through the Select Committee's Report—I read them. Now, these Orders contain at the bottom a Schedule of what they are intended to do, and at the bottom there should also be quoted the Acts of Parliament under which they have been made and the Statutory Instruments being reversed. If any hon. Member has these Orders, he will see that they quote "8 and 9 Geo. 6. c. 43," "9 and 10 Geo. 6. c. 26," and "11 and 12 Geo. 6. c. 17"; but although there are twelve Instruments which have been repealed, none of the original Orders is called a Statutory Instrument.
So we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister repealing things which never existed. He has achieved many


things in his life, and I have a great respect for him, but I think there is something wrong here. The Orders are of local interest, and cover a large part of the country, and, on balance, most of the people concerned are rather glad that the illegal Orders have been repealed; but I am raising this issue to challenge our whole procedure. Delegated legislation is a necessity. It is frightfully important, from the point of view of hon. Members on the other side, that when the Minister signs things which have the force of law there should be no departure, from any of the general protective procedure.
I do not know who can make the decision and whether you, Mr. Speaker, can say if the Orders are valid or not; but I think you can say whether they were properly laid. As I understand it, it is our duty to make sure that when a Statute lays down that certain things are to be done about placing things in our Library and the Vote Office, those things are in fact done. It seems to me quite wrong that an ordinary Member of Parliament who relies on an instruction given to the Vote Office to send him all documents cannot reasonably expect to receive them.
The reason they were not sent is that the Vote Office did not receive them, and the reason the Vote Office did not receive them was that the right hon. Gentleman and those who look after his Department did not trouble to send them. They were available only after I had put a Question, and then only in a form which was most irregular. They had not been printed by the Stationery Office and did not even bear the imprint of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. There have been irregularities in connection with these Orders. The whole basis of liberty in this country is involved and the whole matter of delegated legislation impinges upon the liberty of hon. Members. Someone has to be vigilant to make sure that our Parliamentary liberties are not abused.

12.17 a.m.

Dr. Hill: I beg to second the Motion.
I shall not attempt to make a general survey of the kind my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has made, for I am not

competent to do so. I should say, however, that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend for his vigilance in these matters, so that the position of the House may be preserved. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make two points clear when he replies, and in particular one point which is raised by the Order.
The first paragraph of the Order, beginning, "Whereas" refers to the fact that the highways were stopped in the first place by virtue of the powers conferred by Regulation 16 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. It will be within the knowledge of the House, of course, that that Regulation was, in fact, revoked in 1945. In that sense the paragraph is incomplete, as it refers only to the Defence Regulation by which the stoppage was first made and not, excepting by implication in the second paragraph, to Section 21 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. When one examines the 1945 Act one finds that,
Any order made under any Defence Regulation…unless…
and until
…revoked…shall continue in force…until the expiration of two years from the end of the war period.…
When that passes, Section 3 (2) of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. 1948, is invoked; but when one examines Section 3 of the 1948 Act—for it is under that Act as well as the 1945 Act that the Order is revoked, so this Order states—one finds that these are the relevant words, in subsection (1):
(1) Where a Minister certifies as respects any highway—

(a) that in the circumstances existing at a time before the twenty-fourth day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-six an order could have been made under Regulation sixteen, fifty-two or sixty-nine A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, as in force at that time, stopping up or diverting the highway; and
(b) that the exercise of the right to use the highway has been continuously prevented since that time, but without the making of such an order;"—
where, in short, there has been illegality in closing the highway—
then section fifteen of the Act of 1945.…shall apply.…
But when one examines Section 15 of the 1945 Act, one finds that it relates to permanent stoppages of highways.
The question I want to put to the Minister is this. As the Order invokes Section 3 of the 1948 Act, and as, when one reads that Section, one is referred to Section 15 of the 1945 Act, how is it that what has presumably been a temporary closure is referred to under the procedure for a permament closure? This is a matter of some importance, for Section 15 of the 1945 Act not only refers to permanent closures, but it provides for a number of other things also. It provides for the provision of alternative roads, and for expenditure under a number of headings on the assumption that the highway is permanently and finally closed.
I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's capacity, but I ask him how it is that an order which is clearly intended to bring to an end certain temporary closures of highways is to apply to highways which, in fact, have been permanently closed and for which alternative routes have been opened up? In which of the cases referred to in the Orders was the closure permanent, so rendering it necessary for the Minister to invoke the 1948 Act and, indirectly, Section 15 of the 1945 Act—a procedure for permanent closure—in order to bring to an end the temporary inconvenience from which the residents of the various areas have suffered?

12.23 a.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I must admit at the commencement that I am a little bewildered by some of the conundrums that have been posed to me, but as there is unlimited time at my disposal, I shall do my best to answer them. The first point put to me by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who raised the issue, was whether the Orders were valid. I am advised that they are, and that they were properly laid.

Sir H. Williams: Were the people who made the Orders the people who gave the right hon. Gentleman that advice?

Mr. Stokes: That advice, naturally, comes from the Law Officers of the Crown, in effect. The hon. Member complained that he did not see copies in the Vote Office, but I must say that the procedure, which he has discovered for himself by making inquiries, is, I am told, correct; that it has been the custom to put three copies in the Votes and Proceedings Office, that two of those three

copies go to the Library, and that 15 copies go to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It has never been the practice to send these Orders to the Vote Office. They have never been asked for before.

Sir H. Williams: Which Orders?

Mr. Stokes: This type of Order.

Sir H. Williams: They have never been laid before.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, yes, they have; and presumably that course has been followed because they are of local not general interest. It is purely in the interests of economy. The fact that they have now been reproduced in the office of the Ministry of Works—so the hon. Gentleman tells me, and I will not deny it, though I did not know—was for his convenience.

Sir H. Williams: For the convenience of the House.

Mr. Stokes: For his convenience and for that of the House. Fifty copies were put in the Vote Office having regard to the fact that the Prayer was being moved tonight. What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, that the procedure we followed is the procedure which has been followed hitherto, and I am advised that it is in order.
The hon. Gentleman said that he raised this issue in order to challenge the procedure with regard to delegated legislation. Well, he will not expect me to answer that tonight. I take it that is a form of question which he should address to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and not to me without notice. When he asked why the Question put down to me was transferred—well, when I was a back-bencher, that was always a source of bewilderment to me, but I am bound to say that on this occasion I think the procedure was right.
In that Question the hon. Gentleman asked whether a Bill would be introduced to amend the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, in view of the fact that Orders under that Act to close up highways are not debatable in this House, while Orders to re-open such highways are debatable. It was obviously not appropriate to me because now I only open highways, and as this Question concerned the closing of highways, which is the responsibility of the Minister of


Transport, it seemed to me reasonable that it was transferred to that Minister. I am opening the highways in question today because I shut them—or one of my predecessors did. It is for that reason that I signed the Orders.

Sir H. Williams: I am sorry to interrupt—

Mr. Stokes: I am glad to be interrupted.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman said that his predecessor shut them, but the Schedule does not indicate who shut them. Here is a Schedule of 10 cases and there is no indication except that Orders were made.

Mr. Stokes: I know, but the hon. Gentleman surely was in the House at the time—

Sir H. Williams: No.

Mr. Stokes: Surely. These Orders were made in 1945, 1944 and even in 1942.

Sir H. Williams: But they were not presented.

Mr. Stokes: They were made under Defence Regulation 16 and in those days did not have to be presented. What I am intending to do today is to tidy it up. I should have thought that that would be welcome. What these three Orders do is to open up 16 out of 17 highways or by-ways to which reference is made. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) asked particularly which was the highway now permanently closed. I am glad to say I can answer that.

Sir H. Williams: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stokes: It is the one mentioned on page 1 of the Order relating to the Parish of Simonswood. That has been permanently closed by the Minister of Transport because it is now permanently blocked and there is no possibility of an alternative. The reason I am now declaring it open is for the purpose of tidying up. I am advised by the legal authorities that the process is correct. Having closed it under Defence Regulation 16, I now declare it open, despite the fact that it has since been permanently closed. I am

not a lawyer but I understand that is quite a normal procedure.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is completely satisfied with the answers I have given. I have answered the point raised, and explained quite clearly why we have taken this action. I am surprised that there should be an effort on the part of the Opposition to protest against the opening. The hon. Gentleman said that was not his intention, and I understood he was not protesting against the opening but against the fact that he could not protest when the roads were closed. As he has not raised that point, I think I had better conclude my comments by saying that I hope that the House will reject these Prayers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have had a fascinating explanation of a typical piece of Socialist planning—first declaring something illegal, and then declaring it legal when people are no longer in a position to take advantage of it. The Minister said that it has not been the practice to submit such Orders for printing, and that hitherto it has always been the practice to send copies to the Library and to the Select Committee. He then said that this is done in the interests of economy. At what point, if at all, was the change made in the normal practice?

Mr. Stokes: I was not trying to mislead the House. I supposed that this limitation of printing was imposed in the interests of war-time economy. It has never been changed, and it is the practice we have followed. The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a great deal too much printing thrown about, and what is the point of having great numbers of these small Orders printed, provided they are to be found in the right place? I agree that these Orders were not served on the breakfast table of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East, but he did not raise the point because he is interested but because he wanted to protest against the procedure of delegated legislation. Surely the House is not going to suggest that we should indulge in profligate reprinting of Orders which, in the main, are of very little interest. This is merely a form of procedure which has proved completely satisfactory in the past.

Question put, and negatived.

POST OFFICE FACILITIES, CARDIFF

12.34 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. George Thomas: If it were not that I have a subject of much concern to-my constituents I would certainly not detain the House. I am concerned with a large modern housing estate which was begun in the district of Ely after the first world war and which has been considerably enlarged since 1945. Whole estates have been added until we have probably the largest housing estate in the whole of Wales in the Ely district of Cardiff. Unfortunately, with the growth of the housing estates there has not been a coincident and equal development in the facilities necessary for the inhabitants of the area, and it is that reason which prompts me to draw the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General to the question of the lack of postal facilities on an adequate scale in Ely.
May I add that the people there are not those who complain willingly? They are warm-hearted, with a keen sense of communal responsibility, but they are not the sort to suffer in silence when their suffering can be avoided. Their complaint about the lack of postal facilities was thoroughly justified and overdue. I am sure my hon. Friend will not disagree on this point, for a public petition has been organised and quite spontaneously a large number of names was collected and I, in due course, submitted the petition to the Postmaster-General. I added my own representations as strongly as I could.
The Postmaster-General has now supplied us with new quarters, 91, Wilson Road, Ely. May I pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for the readiness with which they have cooperated on this question of a sub-post office. They were quite willing to act upon the request of my constituents, and in January of this year, although I first raised the matter two years ago this month, my right hon. Friend sent me a letter in which he held out the hope that at some time we shall have a Crown Office at Wilson Road, but present restrictions hold us back.
My constituents are faced with a new difficulty owing to the site of this new

post office. It is on a very steep hill and my hon. Friend will appreciate that, since almost the whole of Ely is on a hill, it can be bleak at this time of year. Conditions can be severe for our old folk and for our pensioners, who have to climb that hill every time they go for their pensions. We have no complaint whatever against the facilities offered in the new sub-post office. They are a great improvement on what was available before when the sub-post office was in a little multiple shop, and a long queue of people waiting to be served in the post office would get mixed up and intertwined with a queue of people waiting to be served at the grocery shop. Sometimes it was embarrassing both for the customers and for the staff of the post office and grocer's shop.
I have given a great deal of thought to possible solutions of this problem and I have reached certain conclusions which I earnestly trust will be of some use to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General when he replies to the debate and in giving consideration afterwards to what has been said. The basic fact is that the Caerau Estate and the Sweldon Estate in Cardiff need sub-post office facilities of their own. From the now substantial area of Caerau my constituents have to cross the main Cardiff—Swansea road before they can get to the post office and this is one of the busiest roads in Great Britain. In the summer months cars pass at the rate of 1,000 to 1,500 an hour. It is also the main road to Porthcawl and to the seaside, and is a road with considerable dangers.
The overwhelming majority of tenants in Caerau are eligible to draw family allowances, so they almost all have to make this regular trip to the sub-post office, which has been put further away than ever from Caerau Estate. Whatever else is done, I feel that the Post Office ought to see there is some special facility made available for the people there. There are quite suitable premises available on the estate for a new sub-post office to be established there. This would ease our problem considerably.
The second proposal I have to make is that the Sweldon Estate might be served by a new sub-post office at the top of Grand Avenue next to the cemetery. The cemetery is at the top of the estate and it would be very convenient if we


could have a sub-post office there. This new sub-post office would serve to relieve the severe congestion that is bound to take place again in the new sub-post office provided. Perhaps in his reply my hon. Friend would be good enough to indicate what is the average turnover in the sub-post office at Ely, which caters for an area in which there are 14,000 electors apart from the number of younger people not on the register. To provide a new sub-post office at the top of Grand Avenue for the Sweldon Estate and one for the Caerau Estate should not prove too difficult a proposition, and it would be a boon to my constituents in Ely who now will have to walk nearly a mile to the new sub-post office.
My third and last proposal is that, since there is a plot of land available near the original site of the sub-post office, a temporary post office might be erected. We do not want to be awkward in this matter, and if need be a Nissen hut could be provided and would serve the purpose until it was possible to build a permanent structure. It may seem that the problem I have raised tonight is not a big one. It may not be an important one in the eyes of many people, but it is one of considerable concern to my constituents who live in the area, or I would not have gone to the length of raising it in the House. When my hon. Friend replies. I trust he will indicate that consideration will be given to the proposals I have submitted and that some effort will be made to improve the facilities now available.

12.45 a.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): We have had a very interesting statement regarding the provision of a sub-post office in the Ely district of Cardiff. I think that my hon. Friend has stated the case very fairly. If I may say so, having known my hon. Friend for a number of years I had a feeling that his speech might be a little more adjectival. However, he did seem convinced that my right hon. Friend has given attention to this problem. This matter was first raised on 16th February, 1949, in regard to the lack of adequate space at the sub-post office at 27, Wilson Road. I am bound to say that the Head Postmaster at Cardiff had not received a single complaint regarding the service, whether it was expeditious, or whether there was

delay. In point of fact, this sub-post office compared favourably with the other sub-post offices throughout Wales and the country generally.
Now we come to the point at which, on 9th November, 1950—that is 18 months afterwards—despite the fact that there had been no complaint, a petition was presented through my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) to my right hon. Friend, complaining that the premises were not adequate and that there were long queues. We gave consideration to this petition. I must say that presentation of the petition did lead us into very serious immediate difficulties, because the sub-postmaster at 27, Wilson Road immediately tendered his resignation.
We were faced with the prospect of having to close the office, and so depriving the residents of that part of Cardiff of the sub-post office service which they had enjoyed, I believe, since 1929. However, we were able to get over that problem, and we took steps to see whether we could get someone to take the agency. We were successful and avoided closing the office by obtaining premises at 91, Wilson Road. The original sub-post office was at 27, Wilson Road, and the second office at 91. These premises are on the same side of the road. As the numbers of the premises in this road go in twos, I think it will be appreciated that there is not a considerable distance for people to travel from the extreme point of the area concerned.

Mr. G. Thomas: I know the area.

Mr. Hobson: I have had plans and maps of the area, and have studied the contours. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I am happy to say that, as a result of consideration which we have given to this problem, we are prepared to establish a new sub-post office in a suitable position on the housing estate south of the Cowbridge Road, provided that we can get a suitable candidate for the office. I do not want to try to pronounce the Welsh names. I am a Yorkshireman, and I may fail if I endeavour to do so. But I think this new sub-post office will be in the area to which my hon. Friend referred. That is what we propose to do.
I have been asked what was the remuneration of that scale-payment office.


I am prepared to give the figure. It was £1,047. Normally it is our practice where a scale-payment office remuneration is more than £800, to consider establishing a Crown office, provided also that there is a minimum of 22½ hours work daily at the office. As a result of the war, and because of the limitation of capital investment, we cannot carry out the programme we should have liked to carry out. The Post Office is limited in capital investment like other industrial undertakings, and we allocate most of our capital investment to the telephone, and not the postal side. Therefore, I cannot hold out hope that, within a reasonable time, a Crown office will be established; but the sub-office will meet the immediate needs of the district, if we can get the right applicant.
The Post Office, we fully realise, is part and parcel of every person's life, especially in view of the vast amount of agency work which we carry out on behalf of other Government Departments. Furthermore, let me say that there is far more important work in Cardiff which needs doing than the building of a Crown office in this area. There is the extension of two branch offices, and there are at least eight scale-payment offices with greater remuneration than £1,047 which would have greater priority. We do not favour the establishment of a temporary

Crown office or of a temporary building for a sub-office. In any case, there would be a difficulty of building, and it would be far better that we should try to get someone to take on this agency.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this question. It is the duty of every hon. Member to do so, if he gets complaints from constituents who are being affected by the activities of this oldest of the nationalised industries—and a very successful nationalised industry. Let me also say that this is evidence of the fact that. under nationalisation, the people can get the facts, and they can criticise; a thing which they could not do if it was a question of multiple shops. Let us not forget that.
I hope that the assurance which I have given my hon. Friend, that we are fully alive to the problems and are sympathetic to them, and also contemplate taking action, will make him feel that a useful purpose has been served. That applies to the petitioners as well. We want to deal with the expanding population in that area so that the people can enjoy the traditionally high and good service which the Post Office gives to the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.